Does this article propagate idolatry?

[rsc2a]

Did you ever find those "missing" passages about Sodom and Gomorrah that we were discussing? Are you still having a gay time at your church services?

I would ask what you are referring to, but upon reflection ... I really don't have the time or patience.  Did you ever find Jude?  Or is that one of the canonical books that fell quickly to your penknife borrowed from Jehudi?

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

The world may never know.

Actually I hold to the traditional Protestant canon.

 

[PappaBear]

BTW -- the winner of an argument is not always the last one to respond.  It is usually the one perceived as having integrity and giving the most reasonable answer based on truth.  I like to let many of your "last posts" to threads stand as examples of your failure in both criteria.

 

[Castor Muscular]

BTW -- the winner of an argument is not always the last one to respond.  It is usually the one perceived as having integrity and giving the most reasonable answer based on truth.  I like to let many of your "last posts" to threads stand as examples of your failure in both criteria.

I recall an old Don Martin cartoon from Mad Magazine.  Someone is lying on his death bed and is trying to say something to his brother, but he can hardly speak. 

"Come closer...he gasps"

The brother gets closer.

"Closer... he gasps"

The brother gets closer.

"LAST TAG!" (he tags his brother and then dies)

 

[rsc2a]

BTW -- the winner of an argument is not always the last one to respond.  It is usually the one perceived as having integrity and giving the most reasonable answer based on truth.  I like to let many of your "last posts" to threads stand as examples of your failure in both criteria.

Fair enough:

The great benefit of this is that words have definition and are not so subjective to your whimsical fancies.  Meanings do not "evolve" or adjust to social mores and customs through the ages, but remain. - PappaBear

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/why-the-social-gospel-is-wrong-by-bryan-denlinger/msg38478/#msg38478

See also:

I'm just reading the Bible as a whole...funny that one who said (this would be you) "this is where Bible study, not just a cursory reading of a passage, comes in handy" and also accused me of  "ignor[ing] a lot of scripture in favor of your perceived final authority of humanism" would completely ignore pretty significant passages about S&G (this would be you again) when discussing their fall. - Me (after you accused me of cherry picking passages)

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/the-fighting-forum/sproul%27s-advice-on-dealing-with-son%27s-live-in-girlfriend/msg38537/#msg38537



Would you like to continue discussing how reasonable and truthful your answers have been?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The acceptance of a 66-book canon is also a practice of "cherry picking", just from a different "basket". 

that doesn't make any sense.  the formulation of the canon wasn't a process of "cherry picking".  I'm thinking you dont  fully understand how the canon came to be.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe *ANY* book of the bible is inspired? if so, did you just "cherry pick" it?

Did Luther claim to "cherry pick" or did he accept the 66-book canon?

About this Book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion. I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First the apostles deal not in visions but prophesy in clear and dry words, as to Peter, Paul and Christ in the Gospel. It befits the apostolic office to speak clearly, without imagery, about Christ and His doing. There is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals exclusively with images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . They are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what it is, to say nothing of keeping it . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it . . . Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely . . . This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it. But until this very day they have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held it was not the work of St. John the Apostle . . . For our part, we share this doubt.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=WZQHsCCTAhAC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=My+spirit+cannot+accommodate+itself+to+this+book+.+.+.+Christ+is+neither+taught+nor+known+in+it+.+.+.+Therefore+I+stick+to+the+books+which+present+Christ+to+me,+clearly+and+purely+.+.&source=bl&ots=mwE6jlI3Fk&sig=axg9AhxEG3bqM2AxPgf7dSjLR80&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iysBUqOkOsemygGMvICQAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=My%20spirit%20cannot%20accomodate%20itself&f=false

And look what he said about the Book of James:

http://onecanhappen.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/luther-let-us-banish-the-epistle-of-james-for-it-is-worthless-%E2%80%94-written-by-a-non-christian-and-cant-be-reconciled-with-pauls-epistles/

And there are unverified quoted Luther made about Hebrews, Esther and Jude as well.

Luther had criteria  by which he "cherry picked" (though my criteria differs from his):

Quote about Luther's canon:

Luther’s also used a personal criterion in determining canonicity. His view is not simply a crass subjective standard (as it is often caricatured to be by Catholic detractors); rather it is an intricate theological construct. For Luther, God’s voice from the first to the last page of the Bible testifies to one unifying theme: Christ. Paul Althaus explains, “…taken theologically, and that means in terms of its essential theme, Luther sees the Bible as a great unity. It has only one content. That is Christ. ‘There is no doubt that all of Scripture points to Christ alone.’” One would be hard-pressed to find anyone seriously adhering to Christianity denying this.

Source: http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a3

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin Coffee:

Did Luther claim to "cherry pick" or did he accept the 66-book canon?

Quote

About this Book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion. I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First the apostles deal not in visions but prophesy in clear and dry words, as to Peter, Paul and Christ in the Gospel. It befits the apostolic office to speak clearly, without imagery, about Christ and His doing. There is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals exclusively with images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . They are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what it is, to say nothing of keeping it . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book  . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it . . . Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely  . . . This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it. But until this very day they have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held it was not the work of St. John the Apostle . . . For our part, we share this doubt.


Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=WZQHsCCTAhAC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=My+spirit+cannot+accommodate+itself+to+this+book+.+.+.+Christ+is+neither+taught+nor+known+in+it+.+.+.+Therefore+I+stick+to+the+books+which+present+Christ+to+me,+clearly+and+purely+.+.&source=bl&ots=mwE6jlI3Fk&sig=axg9AhxEG3bqM2AxPgf7dSjLR80&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iysBUqOkOsemygGMvICQAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=My%20spirit%20cannot%20accomodate%20itself&f=false

And look what he said about the Book of James:

http://onecanhappen.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/luther-let-us-banish-the-epistle-of-james-for-it-is-worthless-%E2%80%94-written-by-a-non-christian-and-cant-be-reconciled-with-pauls-epistles/

And there are unverified quoted Luther made about Hebrews, Esther and Jude as well.

Luther had criteria  by which he "cherry picked" (though my criteria differs from his):

Quote about Luther's canon:



Quote

Luther’s also used a personal criterion in determining canonicity. His view is not simply a crass subjective standard (as it is often caricatured to be by Catholic detractors); rather it is an intricate theological construct. For Luther, God’s voice from the first to the last page of the Bible testifies to one unifying theme: Christ. Paul Althaus explains, “…taken theologically, and that means in terms of its essential theme, Luther sees the Bible as a great unity. It has only one content. That is Christ. ‘There is no doubt that all of Scripture points to Christ alone.’” One would be hard-pressed to find anyone seriously adhering to Christianity denying this.




Source: http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a3

Dan, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Luther collaborated on a German translation of the scriptures, and accepted the 66 book cannon.
He included the Apocrypha between the testaments, but with a note indicating they were not considered inspired.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

I question your conclusions...

 

[christundivided]

Smellin Coffee:

Did Luther claim to "cherry pick" or did he accept the 66-book canon?

Quote

About this Book of Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinion. I miss more than one thing in this book and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First the apostles deal not in visions but prophesy in clear and dry words, as to Peter, Paul and Christ in the Gospel. It befits the apostolic office to speak clearly, without imagery, about Christ and His doing. There is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals exclusively with images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . They are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book and yet no one knows what it is, to say nothing of keeping it . . . My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book  . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it . . . Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely  . . . This is the way it has been with this book heretofore. Many have tried their hands at it. But until this very day they have also let it alone until now, especially because some of the ancient fathers held it was not the work of St. John the Apostle . . . For our part, we share this doubt.


Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=WZQHsCCTAhAC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=My+spirit+cannot+accommodate+itself+to+this+book+.+.+.+Christ+is+neither+taught+nor+known+in+it+.+.+.+Therefore+I+stick+to+the+books+which+present+Christ+to+me,+clearly+and+purely+.+.&source=bl&ots=mwE6jlI3Fk&sig=axg9AhxEG3bqM2AxPgf7dSjLR80&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iysBUqOkOsemygGMvICQAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=My%20spirit%20cannot%20accomodate%20itself&f=false

And look what he said about the Book of James:

http://onecanhappen.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/luther-let-us-banish-the-epistle-of-james-for-it-is-worthless-%E2%80%94-written-by-a-non-christian-and-cant-be-reconciled-with-pauls-epistles/

And there are unverified quoted Luther made about Hebrews, Esther and Jude as well.

Luther had criteria  by which he "cherry picked" (though my criteria differs from his):

Quote about Luther's canon:



Quote

Luther’s also used a personal criterion in determining canonicity. His view is not simply a crass subjective standard (as it is often caricatured to be by Catholic detractors); rather it is an intricate theological construct. For Luther, God’s voice from the first to the last page of the Bible testifies to one unifying theme: Christ. Paul Althaus explains, “…taken theologically, and that means in terms of its essential theme, Luther sees the Bible as a great unity. It has only one content. That is Christ. ‘There is no doubt that all of Scripture points to Christ alone.’” One would be hard-pressed to find anyone seriously adhering to Christianity denying this.




Source: http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a3

Dan, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Luther collaborated on a German translation of the scriptures, and accepted the 66 book cannon.
He included the Apocrypha between the testaments, but with a note indicating they were not considered inspired.

You're ignoring Luther's latter works and his obvious statements to the contrary.

How about Augustine TB? What do you think of Augustine? Good man? Good leader? Did he accept a 66 book canon. Did Jerome? These are the men that influenced Luther and Calvin and many others. You're not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Castor Muscular]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

Seems like Luther was suspicious of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

I'm personally particularly suspicious of 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

Seems like Luther was suspicious of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

I'm personally particularly suspicious of 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.

Luther included them in the canon of his German translation.
He also included the Apocrypha but differentiated it with a footnote saying it was not inspired.
Those are facts.

When you publish your translation, leave them out! ;D

 

[christundivided]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

Seems like Luther was suspicious of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

I'm personally particularly suspicious of 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.

Luther included them in the canon of his German translation.
He also included the Apocrypha but differentiated it with a footnote saying they were not inspired.

When you publish your translation, leave them out! ;D

You're either being dishonest or you're purposely leaving  the fact that Luther was converted translating the German bible. You're ignoring the vast majority of what he later wrote concerning the issue.

 

[Castor Muscular]

So do you deny Luther's authorship to the above quotes?

Seems like Luther was suspicious of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation.

I'm personally particularly suspicious of 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews.

Luther included them in the canon of his German translation.
He also included the Apocrypha but differentiated it with a footnote saying it was not inspired.
Those are facts.

When you publish your translation, leave them out! ;D

Luther questioned their apostolic authority in his prefaces. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You're ignoring Luther's latter works and his obvious statements to the contrary.

So you admit that at some point in time, there WAS "cherry picking" done by Luther. Regardless of his final choices, he still went through the process and didn't accept the 66-book canon based on religious traditions.

I would be delighted to research his works where he recanted his position if you could point me in the right direction. I do know he preached from James but in doing so stayed away from the "controversial" verses in his admonitions, as I understand it.

Did Jerome?

It appears Jerome was dishonest in that he had to add to the Latin Vulgate to perpetuate his own personal opinion:

But this verse clearly states that Ya’aqob was Yahshua’s brother, as do many other passages. So Jerome was in a pickle. Therefore, after writing: "But I saw none of the other apostolorum, except Iacobum, the brother of the Domini," Jerome was forced to add the following to the Latin Vulgate: "This Iacobum is Iacobum the Less, who stayed in Ierosolymam, while the other apostolorum went out to preach the evangelium to the world. He functioned as the spiritual leader of the city where Christi preached and died; he was the Bishop of Ierosolymam. He was called the brother of the Domini because he was a cousin of Iesu, and also because he was similar in appearances to Iesu." It was all untrue, every word of it, and Jerome knew it. But religious leaders will say and do anything to perpetuate their power.

Source: http://questioningpaul.com/Questioning_Paul-Galatians-02-Euangelion-Healing_and_Beneficial_Message.Paul

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

When I post on this thread, my computer screen view 
w    i        d          e      n      s.
Anyone else experience that?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

When I post on this thread, my computer screen view 
w    i        d          e      n      s.
Anyone else experience that?

Due to a very long link to the source. I tried to use hyperlink tags but couldn't figure out how to do it. Sorry!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Here's an excerpt from a blog which pretty accurately sums up the dichotomous disconnect of the folks who deny the Bible is our final authority...

The irony is that those who actually reject scripture (in practice) as their final authority, in the name of having God as their final authority, end up having to fill the vacuum with something else. For Mormons, that seems to often be their infallible, inerrant, internal, emotional, God-given, God-communicated testimonies. For others, it’s some other kind of perceived communication from God, be it philosophy, reason, academia, higher criticism, intuition, whatever. There is no way to have God himself as our final authority without simultaneously having some kind of communicative revelation from God as our final authority. I know the Word through the word. The Jesus I know is the Jesus the apostles gave me. Having a personal relationship through prayer, intuition, spiritual impressions, spiritual illumination, internal testimony, spiritual gifts, personal presence, etc., doesn’t change that. It all to be measured against God’s infallible word.

aaronshaf.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/is-having-the-bible-as-ones-final-authority-idolatrous

 

[christundivided]

Here's an excerpt from a blog which pretty accurately sums up the dichotomous disconnect of the folks who deny the Bible is our final authority...

The irony is that those who actually reject scripture (in practice) as their final authority, in the name of having God as their final authority, end up having to fill the vacuum with something else. For Mormons, that seems to often be their infallible, inerrant, internal, emotional, God-given, God-communicated testimonies. For others, it’s some other kind of perceived communication from God, be it philosophy, reason, academia, higher criticism, intuition, whatever. There is no way to have God himself as our final authority without simultaneously having some kind of communicative revelation from God as our final authority. I know the Word through the word. The Jesus I know is the Jesus the apostles gave me. Having a personal relationship through prayer, intuition, spiritual impressions, spiritual illumination, internal testimony, spiritual gifts, personal presence, etc., doesn’t change that. It all to be measured against God’s infallible word.

aaronshaf.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/is-having-the-bible-as-ones-final-authority-idolatrous

I'm curious...... When you study the Scriptures, how do you find the "place" where God wants you to serve? Do you flip open the book  to a random page and hope you finger lands right where God wants you to be? If you measure everything against God's infallible Word, then how do you measure such things?

What is more important, where you serve or how you serve? What if you're sowing your seed in the wrong field and on stoney ground?

I am all for knowing and reverencing the Scriptures but many people take things to "another level". Your prayers for guidance are just that. You are looking for direct and divine guidance from God that can not be found from reading the Scriptures. Its is both. You live your life by both. You can't live it any other way.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I'm curious...... When you study the Scriptures, how do you find the "place" where God wants you to serve? Do you flip open the book  to a random page and hope you finger lands right where God wants you to be? If you measure everything against God's infallible Word, then how do you measure such things?

What is more important, where you serve or how you serve? What if you're sowing your seed in the wrong field and on stoney ground?

I am all for knowing and reverencing the Scriptures but many people take things to "another level". Your prayers for guidance are just that. You are looking for direct and divine guidance from God that can not be found from reading the Scriptures. Its is both. You live your life by both. You can't live it any other way.

The nature of your question is how the will of God is discerned.  For matters where God has given decretive commands ("thou shall" or "thou shall not") then it is plain what we should do.  In matters where God has not been explicit then we can use general principles to govern our choices.  Seeking "guidance from God" via prayers is good, insofar as it is demonstrating a reliance by faith on the superintendence of God.  But even such a notion implies you are praying in faith, which is to be informed by the revelatory and ulluminating power of the Scriptures.  And of course anytime such prayers are in direct opposition to the revealed decretive will of God then such prayers are askew (ie, people can ask "amiss").

 

[christundivided]

I'm curious...... When you study the Scriptures, how do you find the "place" where God wants you to serve? Do you flip open the book  to a random page and hope you finger lands right where God wants you to be? If you measure everything against God's infallible Word, then how do you measure such things?

What is more important, where you serve or how you serve? What if you're sowing your seed in the wrong field and on stoney ground?

I am all for knowing and reverencing the Scriptures but many people take things to "another level". Your prayers for guidance are just that. You are looking for direct and divine guidance from God that can not be found from reading the Scriptures. Its is both. You live your life by both. You can't live it any other way.

The nature of your question is how the will of God is discerned.  For matters where God has given decretive commands ("thou shall" or "thou shall not") then it is plain what we should do.  In matters where God has not been explicit then we can use general principles to govern our choices.  Seeking "guidance from God" via prayers is good, insofar as it is demonstrating a reliance by faith on the superintendence of God.  But even such a notion implies you are praying in faith, which is to be informed by the revelatory and ulluminating power of the Scriptures.  And of course anytime such prayers are in direct opposition to the revealed decretive will of God then such prayers are askew (ie, people can ask "amiss").

The Scriptures doesn't jump right off the page and answer your prayer. Your faith in the Scriptures produces in YOU the desire and means to pray to God. It is God, Himself, Divinely and personally.... who answers your prayers. Scripture may give some form of "discernment".... Yet, it doesn't personally say "this is the right place for right now". It is my experience and my belief,  that most fundamentalists are so hung up on waiting....... to find something in the Scriptures to direct them...... that they are missing finding direction from God. Its only a prayer away. Such things are tangible in the life of those in Christ. Tangible. Real. Lasting. Moving. Settling. Maturing. They are what motivates, drives, confirms, and sustains our life in Christ. This is called "experience".

Its one thing to read it

Heb 5:14  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Its is another to live it.