Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Smellin Coffee]

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them...

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]That last one was done by somebody who very likely did so tongue-in-cheek, and they did it AFTER you had already lobbed your epithet (so that is a bit of revisionist sophistry on your part).[/quote]

I've heard the same thing from several KJVO people many, many times.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The rest of your claims, as usual, are your erroneous opinion, arrived at by twisting and distorting what other people say in some cases, and incorrectly diagnosing their positions in others. [/quote]

No...they've clearly and repeatedly stated that Scripture is to be our sole and final authority and explained what they meant. They have assigned Scripture a fourth place in the Trinity.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Scripture is the primary source of salvation ("means"), and that is nowhere near a departure from reformed/evangelical traditional soteriology.[/quote]

No. No. No. No. No...and yes, it's a complete departure from virtually every understanding of soteriology outside of hyper-fundamentalists who prefer a tiny god in leather binding over the God taught in the Bible who moves in ways we cannot comprehend to do things we cannot fathom to accomplish a goal we cannot imagine.

To specifically discuss the reformed view, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, for the glory of God alone...I don't see anywhere in that description where the Bible does any saving.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Of course, then you have the people who said that Scripture is the only way we can learn from God...

I think that TB mis-spoke there.  He clearly (to me) was espressing an orthodox exclusivist position which claims that though God can be known generally by conscience and creation, it is only through special revelation that a person can come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and that process is via the spoken or written special revelation of Scripture.

Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?

I don't understand your request.

I've heard the same thing from several KJVO people many, many times.

And that individual very likely *is* KJVO, but that is mostly besides the point being made (which you ignored) in that sentence, and that being you used the KJVo issue to substantiate your claims about Bibliolatry in your latest post, but TB is not a KJVoist, and when you made that original claim about bibliolatry such things weren't in view (and hadn't been introduced by those who you lobbed the epithet against).

No. No. No. No. No...and yes, it's a complete departure from virtually every understanding of soteriology outside of hyper-fundamentalists who prefer a tiny god in leather binding over the God taught in the Bible who moves in ways we cannot comprehend to do things we cannot fathom to accomplish a goal we cannot imagine.

Like Ransom said the other day, you're not worth the keystrokes to disprove.

 

[rsc2a]

Of course, then you have the people who said that Scripture is the only way we can learn from God...

I think that TB mis-spoke there.  He clearly (to me) was espressing an orthodox exclusivist position which claims that though God can be known generally by conscience and creation, it is only through special revelation that a person can come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and that process is via the spoken or written special revelation of Scripture.

When I called him on it, he didn't explain. He doubled down even when I told him repeatedly that his stance was completely opposed to those Scriptures he was defending. I also point blank asked him if he really meant that and he said yes.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I've heard the same thing from several KJVO people many, many times.

And that individual very likely *is* KJVO, but that is mostly besides the point being made (which you ignored) in that sentence, and that being you used the KJVo issue to substantiate your claims about Bibliolatry in your latest post, but TB is not a KJVoist, and when you made that original claim about bibliolatry such things weren't in view (and hadn't been introduced by those who you lobbed the epithet against).[/quote]

Moving the goalposts...

...and even then, anyone who would make Scripture the final authority is attempting to supplant God with His own revelation of Himself. (Ironically, it's not even Scripture, but that individual's particular understanding of said Scripture...)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

No. No. No. No. No...and yes, it's a complete departure from virtually every understanding of soteriology outside of hyper-fundamentalists who prefer a tiny god in leather binding over the God taught in the Bible who moves in ways we cannot comprehend to do things we cannot fathom to accomplish a goal we cannot imagine.

Like Ransom said the other day, you're not worth the keystrokes to disprove.[/quote]

Clearly.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?

I don't understand your request.

You said,

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Alayman:
I think that TB mis-spoke there.  He clearly (to me) was espressing an orthodox exclusivist position which claims that though God can be known generally by conscience and creation, it is only through special revelation that a person can come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and that process is via the spoken or written special revelation of Scripture.

I just chose to fight obtuseness with obtuseness.....

Quote from: TB
Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?


I don't understand your request.

I didn't say that...it was one of the detractors.....

 

[rsc2a]

Alayman:
I think that TB mis-spoke there.  He clearly (to me) was espressing an orthodox exclusivist position which claims that though God can be known generally by conscience and creation, it is only through special revelation that a person can come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and that process is via the spoken or written special revelation of Scripture.

I just chose to fight obtuseness with obtuseness.....

aka: TB was wrong and doesn't want to own up to it. Probably because of how vehemently he defended his statement when pressed on it.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?

I don't understand your request.

You said,

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

Have you read rsc2a's posts....the you is a generic you....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Alayman:
I think that TB mis-spoke there.  He clearly (to me) was espressing an orthodox exclusivist position which claims that though God can be known generally by conscience and creation, it is only through special revelation that a person can come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and that process is via the spoken or written special revelation of Scripture.

I just chose to fight obtuseness with obtuseness.....

aka: TB was wrong and doesn't want to own up to it.

Meet me on the playground after 5th period...... :

 

[Castor Muscular]

I merely offered the same rationale for my belief that you did for yours...and do you not understand hyperbole?

I understand it perfectly.  You, apparently, do not.

You may use hyperbole in constructing your straw men, but the point is that you are using straw man arguments.  In fact, Obama may be the only person I've heard use them more often. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I merely offered the same rationale for my belief that you did for yours...and do you not understand hyperbole?

I understand it perfectly.  You, apparently, do not.

You may use hyperbole in constructing your straw men, but the point is that you are using straw man arguments.  In fact, Obama may be the only person I've heard use them more often.

So, using the same rationale you use, I'm making straw men but you're not?
And the Obama comparison was below the belt....

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Really? What are the initial responses to the OP from us "detractors"?

I don't understand your request.

You said,

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

Have you read rsc2a's posts....the you is a generic you....

I didn't realize you are posting as ALAYMAN...

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I didn't realize you are posting as ALAYMAN...[/quote]

I'm also very curious about where I used that descriptor for anyone simply because they adhere to a 66-book canon. Frankly, it would be an absurd statement on my part (seeing as how I adhere to a 66-book canon and all).

 

[Castor Muscular]

I merely offered the same rationale for my belief that you did for yours...and do you not understand hyperbole?

I understand it perfectly.  You, apparently, do not.

You may use hyperbole in constructing your straw men, but the point is that you are using straw man arguments.  In fact, Obama may be the only person I've heard use them more often.

So, using the same rationale you use, I'm making straw men but you're not?

You just jumped the shark.  Enjoy. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

When I called him on it, he didn't explain. He doubled down even when I told him repeatedly that his stance was completely opposed to those Scriptures he was defending. I also point blank asked him if he really meant that and he said yes.

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.

Moving the goalposts...

You're full of dung.  I didn't move anything.  I nailed your sorry posterior to the wall, and highlighted your usual m.o.

...and even then, anyone who would make Scripture the final authority is attempting to supplant God with His own revelation of Himself. (Ironically, it's not even Scripture, but that individual's particular understanding of said Scripture...)

Given your ad hominem towards "bibliolaters" and your propensity to call them "fundamentalists"....I'm sure you'll appreciate this reformed perspective lifted from yesteryear...

No less, again, than the English Reformers, Calvin held that Scripture is essentially practical in its purpose and that its primary function is to direct sinful men to Christ. “We ought to believe,” he comments on John 5:39, “that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God?” And, regarding Paul’s declaration of the profitableness of all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), he says that it “contains a perfect rule of a good and happy life….Hence it follows, that it is unlawful to treat it in an unprofitable manner; for the Lord, when he gave us the Scriptures, did not intend either to gratify our curiosity, or to encourage ostentation, or to give occasion for chatting and talking, but to do us good; and, therefore, the right use of Scripture must always tend to what is profitable.”

There are many today who, on hearing such words as I have cited from Calvin and his fellow-Reformers in England, would immediately and scornfully dismiss the Reformers as bibliolaters and obscurantists, or (to use another fashionable word) “fundamentalists.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/hughes1.html

 

[ALAYMAN]

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

It wasn't at me, and it was rsc2a.  He didn't make that explicit claim, linking those who hold to the traditional canon as bibliolaters, but rather linked the term to those who were holding to the traditional view of inerrancy through the accepted canon.  The point is that TB never called anybody a heretic for differing on the matter, but "bibliolater" is a pretty ugly and serious <as well as unfounded/false I would add in this case> charge.

 

[rsc2a]

When I called him on it, he didn't explain. He doubled down even when I told him repeatedly that his stance was completely opposed to those Scriptures he was defending. I also point blank asked him if he really meant that and he said yes.

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.

Wait...you said he mis-spoke and now it's him turning my "methodology" (which would actually be logic and an appeal to reason, but anyways...) against me. So which is it?

And, how was I not intellectually honest? Do you even know what that means? As much as you misuse the phrase, my guess would be no. (It's clear from today's posts that you don't know the difference in hyperbole and logical fallacies.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Moving the goalposts...

You're full of dung.  I didn't move anything.  I nailed your sorry posterior to the wall, and highlighted your usual m.o.[/quote]

Alayman doesn't understand logical fallacies!?!? 

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

...and even then, anyone who would make Scripture the final authority is attempting to supplant God with His own revelation of Himself. (Ironically, it's not even Scripture, but that individual's particular understanding of said Scripture...)

Given your ad hominem towards "bibliolaters" and your propensity to call them "fundamentalists"....I'm sure you'll appreciate this reformed perspective lifted from yesteryear...[/quote]

Would those I have accused of such deny the label of fundamentalist?

No less, again, than the English Reformers, Calvin held that Scripture is essentially practical in its purpose and that its primary function is to direct sinful men to Christ. <snip> ; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God?” And, regarding Paul’s declaration of the profitableness of all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), he says that it “contains a perfect rule of a good and happy life….Hence it follows, that it is unlawful to treat it in an unprofitable manner; for the Lord, when he gave us the Scriptures, did not intend either to gratify our curiosity, or to encourage ostentation, or to give occasion for chatting and talking, but to do us good; and, therefore, the right use of Scripture must always tend to what is profitable.”

Yes...I would agree with this as a general statement...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

“We ought to believe,” he comments on John 5:39, “that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures;

[/quote]

Of course, this part is a claim without any merit.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]There are many today who, on hearing such words as I have cited from Calvin and his fellow-Reformers in England, would immediately and scornfully dismiss the Reformers as bibliolaters and obscurantists, or (to use another fashionable word) “fundamentalists.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/hughes1.html
[/quote]

Do I need to quote the WCoF again where it explicitly states that God speaks to us through a variety of means?

 

[rsc2a]

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

It wasn't at me, and it was rsc2a.  He didn't make that explicit claim, linking those who hold to the traditional canon as bibliolaters, but rather linked the term to those who were holding to the traditional view of inerrancy through the accepted canon.  The point is that TB never called anybody a heretic for differing on the matter, but "bibliolater" is a pretty ugly and serious <as well as unfounded/false I would add in this case> charge.

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?)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Are you speaking of a general group or those of us on the forum? TB's OP is about "Does this article propagate idolatry?" and I and at least one other said "no". Faith in a 66-book canon does not idolatry make.

So I was wondering who "lobbed" the "epithet of 'bibliolatry'" at you?

It wasn't at me, and it was rsc2a.  He didn't make that explicit claim, linking those who hold to the traditional canon as bibliolaters, but rather linked the term to those who were holding to the traditional view of inerrancy through the accepted canon.  The point is that TB never called anybody a heretic for differing on the matter, but "bibliolater" is a pretty ugly and serious <as well as unfounded/false I would add in this case> charge.

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.
MacArthur, the noted idolater...who holds the same position as we* do...the historic evangelical position.

A logical conclusion....the generic 'we' worship the Bible.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I merely offered the same rationale for my belief that you did for yours...and do you not understand hyperbole?

I understand it perfectly.  You, apparently, do not.

You may use hyperbole in constructing your straw men, but the point is that you are using straw man arguments.  In fact, Obama may be the only person I've heard use them more often.

So, using the same rationale you use, I'm making straw men but you're not?

You just jumped the shark.  Enjoy.

Jumped the shark WHILE constructing a straw man....I'm good!  :