Idols: Has the bible become an idol?

[charisenexcelcis]

Like I said, this is not going anywhere. I have not said to throw away the scripture. And I disagree with you that the writers of the gospels were inspired by scripture.

We don't seem to be able to see eye to eye on this.

I worded that poorly. I believe that the writers of the gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit resulting in their works being scripture, the word of God. I believe that most of our disagreement is senmantics as I do not think that you do not measure your experience by the word of God and I do not deny that the Holy Spirit is essential in fully experiencing God and understanding His word. These discussions are good for both of us to be able to express what we believe in a balanced, understandable and profitable manner.

 

[VW]

And movements to experience God apart from the measure of the word of God have largely resulted in spiritual dead ends or heresy.[/quote]

The measure of the word of God. Hummm. I wonder about this. It seems to me that if a person would be hard pressed to come up with a more subjective measure than this.

Here is my contention, in plain language, and then I will let it go.

The scripture does not stand alone, like so many contend. It is held up by the power of God, which is the Spirit. It is ludicrious to think that we can take the scripture alone without the revelation of the Spirit and understand what God is saying. That is actually a lack of faith. It is believing something of the scripture which God has not said. It is taking the simple physical view of what it inheirently spiritual.

If the scripture was so easy to understand, so clear cut and absolute, there would never be any argument about what it means, and we would not need the Spirit to teach us.

If the Spirit's revelation in us and to us is so suspect, then we might as well not have it at all.

You keep saying that the problem is us, and I agree, we cannot know what the scripture says truly without the Spirit. If He were not important to us, and if He did not have such a high place among us, then Jesus would not have returned so that He could come to us. In fact, He came because there were things that we needed to hear that we could not hear in the physical, fleshly way. We could not hear them without the Spirit. I wonder where those things were written down.

God bless,

 

[shad]

You have a man here, (VW) that started this thread, who would be alright if the gospel of John was not canonized with the rest of the scriptures because it has been pronounced by some as being 'too spiritual'. In other words the gospel of John is really not inspired by God and it would be okay if you did not acknowledge it as part of the scriptures. He is saying that you don't have to accept what the gospel of John teaches, nor what is testifies about being born again or anything it testifies concerning Christ. And John is a man that was an original apostle, hand picked by the Lord and was an eye witness to his gospel account. If we can throw out the gospel of John as 'too spiritual' then what is stopping us from throwing out his other writings which were three epistles and the book of Revelation? I can't imagine the gospel of John being more spiritual than the book of Revelation. That's what he is saying and no one is concerned about what this man is has said. Now will he contradict himself and say he really didn't mean that or that he simply mentioned it but did not agree. If he did not agree then why bring it up? If he wasn't serious about it, then why post it?

 

[shad]

And movements to experience God apart from the measure of the word of God have largely resulted in spiritual dead ends or heresy.

The measure of the word of God. Hummm. I wonder about this. It seems to me that if a person would be hard pressed to come up with a more subjective measure than this.

Here is my contention, in plain language, and then I will let it go.

The scripture does not stand alone, like so many contend. It is held up by the power of God, which is the Spirit. It is ludicrious to think that we can take the scripture alone without the revelation of the Spirit and understand what God is saying. That is actually a lack of faith. It is believing something of the scripture which God has not said. It is taking the simple physical view of what it inheirently spiritual.

If the scripture was so easy to understand, so clear cut and absolute, there would never be any argument about what it means, and we would not need the Spirit to teach us.

If the Spirit's revelation in us and to us is so suspect, then we might as well not have it at all.

You keep saying that the problem is us, and I agree, we cannot know what the scripture says truly without the Spirit. If He were not important to us, and if He did not have such a high place among us, then Jesus would not have returned so that He could come to us. In fact, He came because there were things that we needed to hear that we could not hear in the physical, fleshly way. We could not hear them without the Spirit. I wonder where those things were written down.

God bless,

Let's quote what is highlighted in blue according to what the scriptures really say in Heb 1:3...

'Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.'

BTW ~ The reason that this man (VW) does not like the gospel of John, and would just as well have it excluded from the Bible, is because the contents of the book repudiates what he believes and has tried to teach on this thread. The book shines 'too much light' on his diluted understanding that has effected his faith and judgment and value of God's word. May I remind some of the beautiful verse that 'songster' mentioned earlier...

Ps 138:2 'I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name'.

Some of us need to stick that one in our Funk & Wagnel!

 

[VW]

Let's quote what is highlighted in blue according to what the scriptures really say in Heb 1:3...

'Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.'

BTW ~ The reason that this man (VW) does not like the gospel of John, and would just as well have it excluded from the Bible, is because the contents of the book repudiates what he believes and has tried to teach on this thread. The book shines 'too much light' on his diluted understanding that has effected his faith and judgment and value of God's word. May I remind some of the beautiful verse that 'songster' mentioned earlier...

Ps 138:2 'I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name'.

Some of us need to stick that one in our Funk & Wagnel!

I cannot believe how you guys just take what is written and make it something else. I believe that the gospel of John is the most spiritual the best gospel of the 4. I was saying that some theologians want to remove it from the bible, which I find crazy. I don't like the gospel of John? Where did you get that idea?

 

[VW]

You have a man here, (VW) that started this thread, who would be alright if the gospel of John was not canonized with the rest of the scriptures because it has been pronounced by some as being 'too spiritual'. In other words the gospel of John is really not inspired by God and it would be okay if you did not acknowledge it as part of the scriptures. He is saying that you don't have to accept what the gospel of John teaches, nor what is testifies about being born again or anything it testifies concerning Christ. And John is a man that was an original apostle, hand picked by the Lord and was an eye witness to his gospel account. If we can throw out the gospel of John as 'too spiritual' then what is stopping us from throwing out his other writings which were three epistles and the book of Revelation? I can't imagine the gospel of John being more spiritual than the book of Revelation. That's what he is saying and no one is concerned about what this man is has said. Now will he contradict himself and say he really didn't mean that or that he simply mentioned it but did not agree. If he did not agree then why bring it up? If he wasn't serious about it, then why post it?

I refute everything you have said here. It is all your own misunderstanding.

So it be on your own head.

 

[VW]

The entire gospel of John. Modern theologian hold this gospel to be too spiritual, which to them equates to esoterical. I find this amazing. It these same men had been present when the cannon was bound, we would have had a much different bible.

Now, am I reversing myself? Did I say in any of the above that "I" wanted to thrown out the gospel of John? Absolutely not. You twist words as good as anyone I have ever heard from.

 

[VW]

You have a man here, (VW) that started this thread, who would be alright if the gospel of John was not canonized with the rest of the scriptures because it has been pronounced by some as being 'too spiritual'. In other words the gospel of John is really not inspired by God and it would be okay if you did not acknowledge it as part of the scriptures. He is saying that you don't have to accept what the gospel of John teaches, nor what is testifies about being born again or anything it testifies concerning Christ. And John is a man that was an original apostle, hand picked by the Lord and was an eye witness to his gospel account. If we can throw out the gospel of John as 'too spiritual' then what is stopping us from throwing out his other writings which were three epistles and the book of Revelation? I can't imagine the gospel of John being more spiritual than the book of Revelation. That's what he is saying and no one is concerned about what this man is has said. Now will he contradict himself and say he really didn't mean that or that he simply mentioned it but did not agree. If he did not agree then why bring it up? If he wasn't serious about it, then why post it?

I apologize to all here that you had to witness an attack such as this, in such a place. It is to my mind inexcusable. In light of this, I will not write any more on this subject until things change.

In His peace,

 

[VW]

I cannot believe how you guys just take what is written and make it something else. I believe that the gospel of John is the most spiritual the best gospel of the 4. I was saying that some theologians want to remove it from the bible, which I find crazy. I don't like the gospel of John? Where did you get that idea?

I apologize for this. I meant to say Shad, not you guys. He is the only one who has written in order to attack.

In His love,

 

[shad]

I apologize for this. I meant to say Shad, not you guys. He is the only one who has written in order to attack.

In His love,

Don't be so offended, just explain why you brought it up in the context of the post it was mentioned. If there is a misunderstanding you should be able to clear it up, but if not then you have to live with it just like anybody else. I hope you can clear this up.

 

[VW]

Don't be so offended, just explain why you brought it up in the context of the post it was mentioned. If there is a misunderstanding you should be able to clear it up, but if not then you have to live with it just like anybody else. I hope you can clear this up.

I was offended, but I will try this once to explain. It is not well known, but some theologians wish to remove the gospel of John from the cannon of the bible. I find this inexcusable in the extreme. I believe that some of the most important truth of Jesus in found in this part of the bible. That there is a move to have it removed proves to me that man's understanding gets in the way of the Spirit's efforts to teach us Christ Jesus. My point is that this move would never be even thought of if the Spirit was the teacher, rather than reason and systems of study. I still do not understand how you got the idea that I wanted to remove this part of the bible.

I have worn out more bibles than I can remember. Literally worn out, to the point that I will not carry them any more because I am afraid that they will fall apart on me. And still, I trust the Spirit in all things, and especially in understanding the scripture. And I will not ever place the Spirit in the place of not being able to teach me something because I make what I receive subject to what I understand. That to me would be trusting my understanding more than trusting the Spirit. And that is the whole point of my mentioning the attempt to remove John from the bible, because it is not easily understood by our reasoning, it is just too spiritual. It does not easily subject itself to systematic theology.

 

[MahogonySnail]

re: apostles. They had a specific office and calling from God and the authority to bind or loose (approve or disapprove doctrine). Their first hand accounts of Christ and powerful reception of the Spirit meant their teachings were pure , but even Paul had his revelation checked by Peter James and John in Jerusalem..as Paul received the gospel only by revelation. Not every believer has this authority,, that's why not every believer is out doing the same miracles that the apostles did, or writing scriptures . But you can live in personal revelation that God gives for you personally. This revelation is not to make new doctrine or go outside of scripture, but to go deeper in understanding with the revelation knowledge we already have from the apostles. There is no danger in this unless it contradicts established doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth , salvation by grace through faith etc.

 

[VW]

re: apostles. They had a specific office and calling from God and the authority to bind or loose (approve or disapprove doctrine). Their first hand accounts of Christ and powerful reception of the Spirit meant their teachings were pure , but even Paul had his revelation checked by Peter James and John in Jerusalem..as Paul received the gospel only by revelation. Not every believer has this authority,, that's why not every believer is out doing the same miracles that the apostles did, or writing scriptures . But you can live in personal revelation that God gives for you personally. This revelation is not to make new doctrine or go outside of scripture, but to go deeper in understanding with the revelation knowledge we already have from the apostles. There is no danger in this unless it contradicts established doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth , salvation by grace through faith etc.

I don't agree that the apostles authority to bind and loose had to do with doctrines, or even that this authority is only to the apostles. And when Paul went to Jerusalem he talked to the other apostles about bringing gentiles into the church, and he was not too worried about whether they agreed or not. In fact, it should have been a moot point, as Peter had already received the revelation about the gentiles from the Spirit.

Why would the Spirit teach something against established doctrines? I don't even consider these things as doctrines, but as eternal truths.

I would never say that apostles should have more of the Spirit than any other believer. I accept that some are more mature in Christ than others, and that they may be called upon to teach or reprove, but this in the Spirit, with meekness. But in the end, it is the Spirit who will teach each of His own. We are all to be taught of God, just as the new covenant says that we will no longer say to each other to know the Lord, for we all will know Him, from the least to the greatest.

I believe that we study the scriptures in order to learn about God. This is good up to a point. But to enter into the relationship with the Father through the Son that we need, we must learn to trust in the Spirit's leading, and to follow Him, to listen to Him, to respect Him. Our attitude towards Him pretty much insures that this will be a failure. This is the awareness I am trying to bring. Not anything against the bible, or church, but a leaning on the Holy Spirit.

 

[giantone]

I never said to throw out the scriptures. I read the scriptures often, refer to them often, love them for the great gift that they are. It is how we see the scriptures that concerns the spirit in me.
I wonder how we could not be in a position to listen to Him. That makes no sense to me, for how can one who has been given the Spirit be separated from Him?

Maybe not separated but I can think of lots of reasons for not hearing God clearly. We can't rely only on scripture but need to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and the Word of God is truth.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I don't agree that the apostles authority to bind and loose had to do with doctrines, or even that this authority is only to the

They had a particular authority because you and I, and even those living in 100 AD+, did not have first hand witness account of Christ's life, ministry and crucifixion, and so only they had the pure knowledge of what is right and wrong...and binding and loosing, is nothing to do with spiritual warfare , as many pentecostals claim, who have hacked the true meaning of it, but accepting certain doctrines and rejecting others, as well as the administration duties of the church (eg excommunication, absolution). They exercised this authority in Acts 15 when a decision was made about whether or not the Gentiles should keep the Law or not.


Paul, is a special case.. who received the Gospel by revelation and met Christ personally in His glorified form, which is why Paul said he felt like he had been born out of time (1 Cor 15:8).

 

[VW]

Maybe not separated but I can think of lots of reasons for not hearing God clearly. We can't rely only on scripture but need to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and the Word of God is truth.

And if that is the case, then that is because God has allowed it. We go through times when we seem to be far away from Him, when He seems to be silent. Those are important times in our growth.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. The bible is the scriptures. It is a very clear distinction in my heart.

thank you for your kindness.

 

[VW]

They had a particular authority because you and I, and even those living in 100 AD+, did not have first hand witness account of Christ's life, ministry and crucifixion, and so only they had the pure knowledge of what is right and wrong...and binding and loosing, is nothing to do with spiritual warfare , as many pentecostals claim, who have hacked the true meaning of it, but accepting certain doctrines and rejecting others, as well as the administration duties of the church (eg excommunication, absolution). They exercised this authority in Acts 15 when a decision was made about whether or not the Gentiles should keep the Law or not.


Paul, is a special case.. who received the Gospel by revelation and met Christ personally in His glorified form, which is why Paul said he felt like he had been born out of time (1 Cor 15:8).

Actually, if we could ask the apostles about this now, we would hear them tell us that we are more blessed than them. I don't wish to be dogmatic in my answer to you about this, but they are very special in the kingdom, yes, but they had no more authority than the least of those who live in Christ. It is not their authority, but Christ' authority. The binding and loosing had to do more with sins than anything else. Whoevers sin was forgiven was forgiven, and whoevers sin was not forgiven was not forgiven. To believe that now that the original apostles are dead and gone these 2000 years, and that they had special authority to do things which now cannot be done, I worry about where this leaves us. I do not want to be the one to tell God that He cannot do a thing because certain men died a long time ago, and they were the only ones through whom He could do what He wanted. I mean, He just might raised them from the dead and do what He wanted to do through us originally through them.

As to the decision in acts, the apostles were going through the teaching of the Spirit even at that time. They were being taught of the Holy Spirit for their entire lives after being filled by Him. The last gospel to be written was by John, and this gospel is to me the most spiritual, has the clearest view of the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of heaven, and the most important truth about God's love towards us.

Some would say that the Spirit's works in this earth have steadily decreased from the time of the apostles. I would say that this is our fault, and not the Spirit's desire.

 

[MahogonySnail]

VW, I agree, thanks.

 

[VW]

Since I started this thread, I have been trying to put into words what I know in my spirit. And I have for the most part failed, miserably. I did not want to start this thread, as I knew that it would cause trouble. For this I apologize. On the way to taking my son to work, the Spirit showed me how to explain this (what I believe to be) very important thought.

The scriptures are from and of God. They are such that the depth of them is not even reachable by us. There is a depth of meaning in the scriptures which no one has reached yet, that is no one among mankind. I suspect that even the angels have trouble with it. I wanted to learn of Him, to be taught by the Spirit, after He rescued me from my faulty beliefs, and a life that was displeasing to Him. I placed my understanding in His hands. He first took me to the prophets, and not just any old book of the prophets, but Lamentations. I understood very little of this work with my mind, but my heart cried out with the pain that the Spirit feels when He is grieved. Then, He took me to all of the other prophets, and what I learned first is that I did not understand any of it, at all. And I was reminded of the scripture where Paul wrote that if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And then I knew, I could not understand without His unction, anointing, power, help, teaching. When Jesus said that no man has seen God at any time, I now knew what He meant. The scriptures are a picture of God, and we can only see Him in the Spirit.

But this I learned. The Spirit is sensitive, gentle, subtle, easily put off. Why? Because this is God living in us, and He has the heart of God, but lives in the heart of man. His place is to prepare us for meeting God face to face, and we must learn to be humble, very humble, and He is the best teacher of that. Any pride, any lack of humility, and He will not respond. (This is in His relationship with the believer, not with the world at large.) How we see Him in relationship with everything else, including the bible, determines just how willing He is to teach us, to open up the depths of the scriptures, to help us see the face of God, and be ready to meet Him in that day.

This has been the whole point.
In His love and peace,

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Since I started this thread, I have been trying to put into words what I know in my spirit. And I have for the most part failed, miserably. I did not want to start this thread, as I knew that it would cause trouble. For this I apologize. On the way to taking my son to work, the Spirit showed me how to explain this (what I believe to be) very important thought.

The scriptures are from and of God. They are such that the depth of them is not even reachable by us. There is a depth of meaning in the scriptures which no one has reached yet, that is no one among mankind. I suspect that even the angels have trouble with it. I wanted to learn of Him, to be taught by the Spirit, after He rescued me from my faulty beliefs, and a life that was displeasing to Him. I placed my understanding in His hands. He first took me to the prophets, and not just any old book of the prophets, but Lamentations. I understood very little of this work with my mind, but my heart cried out with the pain that the Spirit feels when He is grieved. Then, He took me to all of the other prophets, and what I learned first is that I did not understand any of it, at all. And I was reminded of the scripture where Paul wrote that if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And then I knew, I could not understand without His unction, anointing, power, help, teaching. When Jesus said that no man has seen God at any time, I now knew what He meant. The scriptures are a picture of God, and we can only see Him in the Spirit.

But this I learned. The Spirit is sensitive, gentle, subtle, easily put off. Why? Because this is God living in us, and He has the heart of God, but lives in the heart of man. His place is to prepare us for meeting God face to face, and we must learn to be humble, very humble, and He is the best teacher of that. Any pride, any lack of humility, and He will not respond. (This is in His relationship with the believer, not with the world at large.) How we see Him in relationship with everything else, including the bible, determines just how willing He is to teach us, to open up the depths of the scriptures, to help us see the face of God, and be ready to meet Him in that day.

This has been the whole point.
In His love and peace,

The Holy Spirit as the principle instructor in the word of God.