Worshipping the Bible is Idolatry!
- Thread starter OldOrthodoxChristian
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Some people have high regard for the Bible,but I doubt anybody is worshipping the Bible.Are they kneeling before it reverencing it,and saying thou art my God,to the Bible alone.It seems no one will do that.
Do not confuse honoring God's word with worshipping it.
And for people who think we are saved by Christ and not the Bible,how would a person know of Christ and the truth,except there was a Bible,and the Bible says the scriptures are able to save us,because that is where we learn the truth of Jesus and how to perfect ourselves to be right with God.
If there was no Bible how would you be saved,for you would not know anything,and the Bible says you are more noble,if someone tells you the word of God,and you search the scriptures to see if it is true.
Do not confuse honoring God's word with worshipping it.
And for people who think we are saved by Christ and not the Bible,how would a person know of Christ and the truth,except there was a Bible,and the Bible says the scriptures are able to save us,because that is where we learn the truth of Jesus and how to perfect ourselves to be right with God.
If there was no Bible how would you be saved,for you would not know anything,and the Bible says you are more noble,if someone tells you the word of God,and you search the scriptures to see if it is true.
The problem is, if the Bible is the final authority, who is the final authority as to what the Bible means? The Bible doesn't tell us who will rightly interpret the Bible, does it? If there is no identifiable Church according to 1 Tim. 3:15, then the Bible is false, as there is then, no visible Church (1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 16:18) that can be turned to to correctly discern the word of truth, no men who tell us what the verses mean, see Acts 8:30-31.
John 1:1 says Jesus Christ is the Word. Not the Bible.
John 1:1 says Jesus Christ is the Word. Not the Bible.
The problem is not the bible being the final authority. The problem is who is trying to be the final authority as to what the bible means.
The Holy Spirit is the final authority as to what the bible means. No one can properly understand the bible without the help of the Holy Spirit. If you have the help of the Holy Spirit showing you what the scriptures mean why would you then lean on someone elses understanding? It is because you don't have faith in the Holy Spirit, you instead have faith in men.
The Holy Spirit is the final authority as to what the bible means. No one can properly understand the bible without the help of the Holy Spirit. If you have the help of the Holy Spirit showing you what the scriptures mean why would you then lean on someone elses understanding? It is because you don't have faith in the Holy Spirit, you instead have faith in men.
Joh 16:13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear,thatshall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 16:14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shewitunto you.
Even here, there seems to be more Truth implied, that was to come.
And what about here?
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
Or here?
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Not following on to know "the all Truth" I think is getting stuck to the literal writting, and not moving forward with The Spirit.
I don't believe every Word of God that proceeds out of His Mouth,
Was written with pen and ink.
Joh 16:14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shewitunto you.
Even here, there seems to be more Truth implied, that was to come.
And what about here?
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
Or here?
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Not following on to know "the all Truth" I think is getting stuck to the literal writting, and not moving forward with The Spirit.
I don't believe every Word of God that proceeds out of His Mouth,
Was written with pen and ink.
E
Your assuming these things were not the writtings of the epistles and revelation. and thus when God "closed the book" he was finished showing us what we need to know (or at least can comprehend)
He said they were not able to handle advanced doctrine (Meat) and thus he had to give them milk (basic doctrines) And was not infering what you think
Nor do I. John explains this in his gospel at the end.
I do, however, believe ANYTHING we need to know was written in pen and ink. Otherwise we would have NO CLUE if it was really from God. and could not test all spirits to see if they are from God or not.
Jesus used scripture to prove his point and who he was.
Paul did the same
Why should we be any different than use their example??
So, what you are saying is that if we believe that the rightly interpreted bible is the final authority on God's revealed truth, then we are worshipping the bible? And you are also saying that each of us, through our walk with Christ, and prayer, and the experience of fellowship within the body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit that has been given to us, have no chance of correctly interpreting the bible?
So what we should do instead, is put our faith in a man such as the pope, representing a church organization that has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history, and openly supported viscious dictators while turning their backs on the cries of humanity, and worship the pope instead.
For that IS what you are saying isn't it? You are saying that that which we accept as authority to speak for God, is that which we worship.
What a ridiculous fallacy of logic!!! We worship God, but accept the bible, rightly interpreted as the word of God, whom we worship. I believe that, although we are limited noetically because of sin, we are no more limited than the pope, who also sins.
We are to allow Holy Spirit to sanctify us through our walk with Christ, and as we are able to endure the truth, it will be revealed to us, as we read and study God's word found in the bible.
So what we should do instead, is put our faith in a man such as the pope, representing a church organization that has perpetrated some of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history, and openly supported viscious dictators while turning their backs on the cries of humanity, and worship the pope instead.
For that IS what you are saying isn't it? You are saying that that which we accept as authority to speak for God, is that which we worship.
What a ridiculous fallacy of logic!!! We worship God, but accept the bible, rightly interpreted as the word of God, whom we worship. I believe that, although we are limited noetically because of sin, we are no more limited than the pope, who also sins.
We are to allow Holy Spirit to sanctify us through our walk with Christ, and as we are able to endure the truth, it will be revealed to us, as we read and study God's word found in the bible.
Last edited:
Grandpa, If that means the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals not in communion with each other, then that would mean some 2 billion separate churches, each not in communion with each other, and each having separate, conflicting messages, from the same Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would be telling one man one thing, and another man another thing, contradicting Himself. Some man would be saying that another man doesn't have faith in the Holy Spirit, because he didn't hear the same thing from the Holy Spirit that another man heard. That would mean private interpretation of the Scriptures is true. Why lean on someone else's understanding? Did not the Ethiopian eunuch rely on the understanding given by St. Philips in Acts 8:30-31? Was Saint Philip wrong, because he is not the Holy Spirit? Was he teaching a "tradition of man", merely because he is a man? Would you have refused to listen to Philip, because you're waiting to hear from the Holy Spirit from on high, separate from the ministry of any man? What do you do with Matthew 28:19-20? If you can receive baptism without any man, why did Christ send men to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Why did He commission men to teach and baptize in His name, if there are no men who can do that without contradicting the Holy Spirit?
If you have faith in hearing from the Holy Spirit by yourself, you have faith in at least one man: yourself. You believe in your private, individual ability to hear the Holy Spirit on your own, without any other man teaching you. You just go to the Bible alone, thinking you can know what it means without any man telling you, ignoring such Scriptures as Acts 8:30-31.
God bless you. Inevitably, you will be listening to some men or group of men who interpret the Bible, or tell you what the Bible means. It depends upon which men are filled with the Holy Spirit so they can correctly teach to you what the Bible means by what it says. In Erie Scott Harrington
Why did He commission men to teach and baptize in His name, if there are no men who can do that without contradicting the Holy Spirit?
If you have faith in hearing from the Holy Spirit by yourself, you have faith in at least one man: yourself. You believe in your private, individual ability to hear the Holy Spirit on your own, without any other man teaching you. You just go to the Bible alone, thinking you can know what it means without any man telling you, ignoring such Scriptures as Acts 8:30-31.
God bless you. Inevitably, you will be listening to some men or group of men who interpret the Bible, or tell you what the Bible means. It depends upon which men are filled with the Holy Spirit so they can correctly teach to you what the Bible means by what it says. In Erie Scott Harrington
Not at all, Superdave. I am not a supporter of the pope of Rome. What every Protestant does, however, is make himself/herself into his/her own infallible pope, his/her own private interpreter of the Bible. Thus, no one is accountable to anyone else, but only to himself/herself as infallible private interpreter.
How do we know what the Bible is, rightly interpreted?
Where do we receive our traditions: from ourselves as individuals, or from the Church that Christ founded?
If there is no visible, historical, Church that Christ founded, what do we do with Matthew 16:18?
Do we start there with Christ, and say Matthew 16:18 is not so? Do we say it didn't exist until in Germany in 1517 AD? Or England in 1605 AD? Or with the Methodists in the 1700s? Or didn't it begin in Rome in 1054 AD? Or was it, the Church, there from the beginning, unchanging from the start?
God bless you. Always. Amen. In Erie Scott R. Harrington
How do we know what the Bible is, rightly interpreted?
Where do we receive our traditions: from ourselves as individuals, or from the Church that Christ founded?
If there is no visible, historical, Church that Christ founded, what do we do with Matthew 16:18?
Do we start there with Christ, and say Matthew 16:18 is not so? Do we say it didn't exist until in Germany in 1517 AD? Or England in 1605 AD? Or with the Methodists in the 1700s? Or didn't it begin in Rome in 1054 AD? Or was it, the Church, there from the beginning, unchanging from the start?
God bless you. Always. Amen. In Erie Scott R. Harrington