LINKS!

You may also like...

157 Responses

  1. I like the way LINKS connects me to God.

  2. Oops … that was errant… I mean LINKS is great because thereby we “connect with God.”

  3. Bob Sweat says:

    Love the Brennan Manning link! I’m stealing it!

  4. Paige says:

    Thank you!

    Love the ministry of Steve Brown. Pretty much the ‘only’ source ‘out there’ that gives me any hope.

    Interesting article/words on The Bible….. I personally have come to believe I had made an ‘idol’ of The Bible, almost using it to ‘text’ with God instead of just conversing with Him…. as if I could ‘connect’….. I see Him more vast every day……and feel much smaller as well.

    Wondering how YOU are doing,my dear…..

    Love and blessings to all…..

  5. Michael says:

    Paige,

    I’m feeling better than I have in a very, very, long time.
    Thankful for a wise physician and the prayers of my friends.
    Love you much…

  6. Paige says:

    That is VERY good news. Thanks for letting me know. Praise the Lord for His mercies.

  7. Daniel says:

    Is the Church over the Bible, or the Bible over the Church? Well, which came first, The Church or the NT? The obvious answer, despite the claims in the link, is that The Church came first. The Church delivered the NT. I continue to be amazed that people trust the cannon, but don’t what to to listen to what those who decided on the cannon, have to say about The Church and the Bible.

  8. Daniel says:

    Paige, I appreciate your comment. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Protestants/Evangelicals think that the point of Christianity is knowing and studying the Bible, rather than knowing God. Analogy from a baseball fan: I’m reading a book about Derek Jeter. My wife comes in and tells me: “Honey, Derek Jeter is at the front door!! He wants to talk to you!” my response: “Don’t bother me with that! I”m busy reading about him now!”

  9. Except for those of us who think that God does indeed come to us through his word.

  10. covered says:

    John 1:1 not to mention that “God said…” and it was. I’d say the Word came first.

  11. Daniel says:

    Wow….so Covered, when did the NT church start? When were the books of the NT written, and when did we have a completed and accepted cannon? sorry, this is just too easy.
    MLD, what happens when God “tells” you X through His Word, but God “tells” me the exact opposite through His Word? What happens then?

  12. Daniel,
    “What happens then?”
    I would say YOU need to go back and read it correctly. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Can you give me an example where this might happen – or explain why he would not or could not want us to do different things?

    Are you saying if we both went to the priest and asked advise he would always give us the same direction?

  13. covered says:

    Daniel, when I was getting ready to respond to your #11, I went back and read this from your #6, “I continue to be amazed that people actually trust the canon…” and I realized that this is a worthless debate. If we can’t agree on the inerancy of God’s Word, then there isn’t much to discuss here.

    I am sort of curious why you would come to this sight though if God’s Word can’t be trusted as much as man’s word?

  14. Xenia says:

    The New Testament was written by early Christians who were part of the Church. The books themselves were read in the churches in the context of the church. The content of the Canon was determined by the Church: yes on the Gospel of Matthew, no on the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. This was all done within the context of the Church, the undivided Church as it existed at that time. The only reason anyone would attempt to make the claim that the Bible is over the Church and not the other way around is if they have a Sola Scriptura agenda they wish to promote.

  15. Xenia says:

    Ah, covered, you have missed the entire point of Daniel’s post.

    I have to be out for a bit this afternoon. I’ll join the fray when I get back.

  16. covered says:

    Wouldn’t be the first time Xenia. I am multitasking and have no business trying to do more than one thing at a time.

  17. Steve Wright says:

    The Old Testament canon was certainly in existence before the New Testament Church and was used by that same Church in their preaching as they “reasoned from the Scriptures” – the Spirit gave the Scriptures through the apostles like Paul so, yeah, they had to get saved first but it seems sort of silly to argue some profound point that their existence preceeded the NT when God chose them as apostles in large part for the purpose of bringing us the NT canon.

  18. Paige says:

    Historically, believers have not had access to the scriptures as we do today. It’s only in the last century or less that Christians have even had ONE copy of the Bible, much less, the 10 versions I have on my shelf today and the freedom to go buy more.

    We have two ‘family Bibles’ from 1850 with records of births, deaths, marriages written inside, but no other evidence of the owners of the book spouring over the pages daily for hours on end or lugging the books around to weekly Bible studies. No way.

    Let me say that I LOVE THE BIBLE.
    I can truthfully say “Oh how I love Thy law, it is my meditation all the day.” ps 119:97
    My husband says my epitaph should be ‘She loved her kids and the Bible”.

    I have read, meditated, mused, memorized and taught the Bible for 4 decades. Yes, of course, God speaks through the Bible….
    How did that work for the myriad of believers for centuries before the Reformation or printing press? There are believers today in the world without the scriptures, or even the ability to read. Does illiteracy make one a lesser disciple? Of course not.
    We make the Narrow way narrower than the Lord Jesus made it. You have to read to walk with God or be saved, in His Will.

    IMO, current church culture has made Bible reading, preaching, study and memorization a proof of faith like a boy scout merit badge, as if we are not complete in Christ w/o this practice.

    Daniel..Thanks for your illustration.

  19. Steve Wright says:

    When I read the NT, I read about a very screwed up church that the apostles like Paul had to correct with their authority – and their corrections are largely what we know as the Scriptures in the first place….Teaching through 1 Timothy now, and once more, Paul is cleaning house (or getting Timothy do clean house with Paul’s blessing).

  20. J.U. says:

    I agree with Steve. Now on to the chicken and the egg.

  21. It’s not a matter of which came first – it’s a matter of which has authority over the other …which I personally think is a false dichotomy – but I will play along.

    So, I will ask – if the Bible and the Church say opposite things, who do we look to? (no fair to say they will always say the same thing – play along)

  22. Linda Pappas says:

    LOL The other day this very thought came into my head, “which came first, the chicken or the egg.” Easy answer: it had to be the hen and the rooster, for it takes both to have the egg fertilized, then give birth to a baby chick. Without the hen, there would not be an egg and without the rooster, the egg would just remain an egg.

    On the more serious side: early church was read the letters written by Paul and others to the churches. Long before, the “church fathers” came on the scene. At the same time, by no means was the O.T. scrolls being ignored by the Christians who were also Jews. Jesus even read them when in the temple and synagogue. Jesus told us to tell these things to the people and to our children, and their children, and so on and so forth. He also told us to walk in obedience to all that He had shared with us and what was written, along with letting us know what the long and short term consequences would be if we make the choice of not doing so. The “church fathers” did not discover anything that was not already written. Anything beyond this is all wood, hay, and stubble, IMO.

    The Old Testament is a classroom of text providing us en vivo examples of what happens when we turn the things of God into what we want it to mean rather than what it does say clearly to everyone if they would clear away the need to hang onto that which they know just don’t fit within His will and His way. God speaks to us through the written word on every topic that is needed to keep us in relationship with Him while helping us to understand that not all will be easy to get along with nor will most things be that which the world has to offer.

  23. Jean says:

    The article on the Bible over the church or the church over the Bible is the 3rd article I’ve read recently that touches on the issue of authority to interpret Scripture. The common view among many that anyone can interpret the Bible for themselves has been cited as a cause of so much division in the church (50,000 Popes syndrome). I would include as a potential additional negative consequence damage to the church’s witness from sending mixed messages, competition and public infighting on matters of doctrine. In an individualistic culture like ours, I don’t think the genie can ever be put back the bottle. I’m a product of this culture and I find it very difficult to submit my thinking on theological issues to a pastor or statement of faith. I like my independence, but at the same time I see that there are real drawbacks to my kind of thinking.

  24. brian says:

    I am glad they are being consistent with the left behind series. I E they are all awful especially the books they are far worse than the twilight series which is saying something.

  25. Francisco Nunez says:

    The article “Things Jesus said but that we rarely hear about” was right on and very thought provoking. Thanks for sharing. Blessings

  26. brian says:

    I dont agree with Dr. White on well basically anything theological or political but I have to respect that he goes into mosques and “debates” with people of the Muslim faith on their own ground. I read some of the responses to him on his facebook page and several people of the muslim faith spoke highly of his humility and graciousness. I have to admire that.

  27. Xenia says:

    Hi covered, I nearly forgot to clear up what I am pretty sure Daniel meant by this statement:

    I continue to be amazed that people trust the cannon, but donโ€™t what to to listen to what those who decided on the cannon, have to say about The Church and the Bible.

    .. to which you made this response (in part):

    If we canโ€™t agree on the inerancy of Godโ€™s Word, then there isnโ€™t much to discuss here.

    I am pretty sure Daniel believes the Bible is true from Genesis to the Apocalypse and everything in between. That’s not what he’s saying in his post. I believe he is pointing out that if one has no confidence in Church Tradition then how can they have any confidence in the Canon of the NT, since the Canon itself is a Tradition. He’s not saying the Bible is not true; he is just wondering how you all can be so sure that your Table of Contents in the front of your Bibles can be trusted since you don’t trust the Church for any of her other Traditions.

    That the Canon is a Tradition cannot be disputed. There is no list in the NT of NT books and Sola Scriptura is no help here at all. The fathers of the Church had to weigh all the scriptures floating around over the first three hundred years and discern what to keep and what to toss. Many writings didn’t make the cut, such as The Shepherd of Hermas.

    I think when some people hear the word “Tradition” their brain cues the loop that goes “Vain traditions of men! Vain traditions of men!” and they can’t get past it. But what is Church Tradition? It just means “that which is handed down.” In this case, that which was handed down (“traditioned,” you might say) was the list of books that the early Christians discerned were worthy to be called Scripture.

    Speaking for the Orthodox, (I can’t speak for the Roman Catholics), “Tradition” means everything that has been handed down to us. “Tradition” is the umbrella under which we find many things, such as the writings of the Church Fathers, the Creeds, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and so on. By far, the biggest piece of this Tradition is the Holy Scriptures.

    So ease up on Daniel. He didn’t say what you thought he was saying ๐Ÿ™‚

    To Steve: It is true that the Old Testament was not written by what you consider to be the Church proper but remember, I believe that the Church existed in the Old Testament, too.

    (Yet I also believe that the Church began in a unique way on the Day of Pentecost.)

    So saying the Church wrote the entire Bible is fine by me.

  28. SJ says:

    The Sproul round table was awesome. I could listen to those guys for hours. Soak it in. Thanks Michael!

    For the masses, what dispensational, non-reformed contempory theologian would you throw in the mix at that round table? Tozer?

    Of note, I know no evangelicals that have thrown out the law (simplified, put it in the back seat) as described by the term antinomianism. I’m sure they could exist, but it would be like a 5-pointer purposefully continueing sin because they are elect. Both examples on the surface being incorrect view points.

  29. PP Vet says:

    The canon is a tradition in your tradition, maybe.

    Is the Deity of Christ a tradition, X? Or is it known by revelation?

    The canon was recognized, not decreed.

  30. Xenia says:

    Good morning, PP Vet,

    All Christian truth is known by revelation. Who was this truth revealed to? To Christians, who make up the Church.

    The Deity of Christ is a truth, a foundational truth. It is on par with St. Peter’s recognition that Jesus Christ is the Messiah: “…flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” The teaching of the Deity of Christ has been handed down as truth (because it is true) for centuries. This teaching is part of the Holy Tradition, along with a myriad of other truths.

    Their is a misconception which equates Tradition with “something made up by a medieval pope to personally enrich his coffers.” Again, I can’t speak for the Catholics but I think a simple (probably simplistic) definition of Orthodox Tradition is “All we know to be true about God that has been believed by the Church since the very beginning, mostly from the Scriptures.” You could say that Holy Tradition is a vast Bible Commentary.

    My old Calvary Chapel had its Tradition which included a very high view of the Scriptures, verse by verse teaching, casual attire, contemporary worship music, a belief in the Rapture, mildly charismatic, and the Moses Model of church government. As it happens, the undivided Church of the first 10 centuries was around when some of the foundational truths of Christianity were being understood. Understood, not invented. And written about. Rather than chaffing at this, everyone who calls themselves a Christian today should be grateful. To who? To God, Who revealed these things to us and to the faithful men of God who prayed and discerned the truth and wrote it all down.

    God may reveal the truth but it doesn’t mean every human hears it correctly. That’s what the Ecumenical Councils were all about. At one time in early Christian history a very large number of people wrongly interpreted the biblical revelation and believed the Bible taught that Christ was a created being. This was the Arian heresy and it just about took over the whole Christian world but was stopped by the hand of God by means of the First Ecumenical Council, where godly and learned bishops convened, studied the Scriptures, prayed, and arrived at the proper conclusion that Christ is uncreated and co-existent with the Father. Out of this council came the Nicene Creed and all Christians today ought to be grateful for this. These Councils are part of the Tradition of the Church. Each generation doesn’t have to convene and figure this out again and again.

    As to the Canon of the NT, the canonicity of each book was also given by revelation but not to each individual Christian or else each one would have come up with their own Canon. In a sense it had to be decreed by a central authority or there would have been chaos. “Turn to the 2nd chapter of the book of Hebrews, if you happen to have that in your Bible because you believe it was personally revealed to you that Hebrews is canonical.” Imagine the confusion. I am not adverse to Church authority. I don’t think it was ever meant to be every Christian had to figure everything out for themselves, even the ToC of their Bibles.

    We ALL rely on Church Tradition. Otherwise every new Christian on the planet would have to try to parse God’s revelation about complex doctrines for themselves. Imagine handing a new believer a Bible and telling them to ask for God to reveal to them personally His nature. How many would arrive at the proper doctrine of the Trinity or His Two Natures?

  31. Xenia says:

    What is being suggested? That in the first centuries Christians did not belong to one Church but met in non-denominational (so to speak) groups scattered all over the Middle East and each little group discerned God’s revelation for themselves? Each little group met on their own came up with the list that comprises the NT Canon? Bishops and Patriarchs of the Church had nothing to do with this process?

    Could something like this happen today when Christians really do meet in non-denomination groups (and denominational groups as well) all over the world and cannot even agree on the meaning of baptism, communion, free-will, etc? Could you get all these disparate groups to agree on anything, much less produce a canon of Scripture that everyone agrees on? It couldn’t happen now and it’s not what happened in the 3rd-4th century, either.

  32. Xenia says:

    It did happen that in the first centuries individual churches (parishes) had their own lists of of preferred books.* The Canon was not set for the first hundred years of the Church. But eventually an official list had to be promulgated or there would be chaos.

    *For those of you who believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, how could this doctrine work if there was no formal list of what books make up the Scriptura?

  33. Xenia says:

    first hundred years of the church<<<

    Should have written first 300 years of the church.

    Ok, I'm done, I think.

    Sorry for being so long-winded.

    Forgive me.

    Xenia

  34. Jean says:

    Xenia,
    Keep going. You’re a great read, even when you’re busting my ***** ๐Ÿ™‚

  35. Steve Wright says:

    Xenia asked, ‘What is being suggested’ – That is a good question. I thought the main point was that the Church prefaced the Scripture and that somehow that meant something in terms of an argument. Not that the Church was not used by God in later councils to reject heresy and so forth. My point was that the Church….was a total mess until the Scriptures were written, and at least to the extent she remained a mess in future years, it was in rejection of the Scriptures given by God..and not due to ignorance.

    So did the Church decide the canon for God…or discover the canon God gave all along?

    (If nobody knew anything on this topic, I think it would be a little misleading to tell someone the canon was not “set” for the first 300 years of the church. That sounds exactly like the unbelieving world’s take when rejecting the Bible – For example, Paul’s letters, which are much of the New Testament, were not in doubt)

  36. Xenia,
    I agree with everything you have said, but… as I have said in the past you have absolutely no clue what Sola Scriptura means and you misapply it and throw it up as a straw man in every single conversation like this.

  37. Bob says:

    Read FF Bruce on the Canon, probably the best modern text on the subject around.

    BTW one point which must be mentioned about “the canon;” the OT was not “canonized” buy the Christian church, it was done by the Jewish people a very long time before the “church” existed. NT “canonization” should be the debate here. Of course if one has Jewish connections the debate could be which of the Jewish texts is the most accurate, where does the codified oral traditions begin and which rabbinic traditions should be accepted as law and practice. Now replace many of those with Alexandria, Orthodox, Assyrian, church fathers, Vaticans, counsels, and ….

    My opinion? Nah it really doesn’t matter.

  38. Xenia says:

    you have absolutely no clue what Sola Scriptura means <<<

    I concede that I do not have a good understanding of what Sola Scriptura means in the life of Christians who come from the magisterial Reformation, that is, the Reformed and the Lutherans.

    I believe I do have a good understanding of what it means in the popular Evangelical culture, which I was part of for 50 years.

  39. Bob says:

    oops! they didn’t “buy” the canon, it should be “by” but I’m sure many “bought” into it so they wouldn’t go against the leadership.

    Sorry for the sarcasm, I just wish people would talk less about scripture, read less about what others think about scripture and spend more time reading scripture for themselves. Then do the rest.

  40. Bob says:

    I really like the connection “link” to the getting connected with God thread.

  41. Xenia says:

    In fact, MLD, I will concede even further and say that Evangelicals have a mistaken understanding of Sola Scriptura, which I have learned from them and probably apply too freely to every situation.

    Mea culpa.

  42. Xenia,
    The only place that Sola Scriptura applies is in conflict between what the Bible says and what the Church / man says.
    If the Bible says “Jesus is God” and the Church says “Jesus is an inspired man.” We use the scriptures alone as our source of truth. It never means that other things are not used, such as tradition, people’s learned opinions or even articles from Christianity Today – as long as they line up with scripture.

    When they go off the rails, then we put away tradition, we put away our learned opinions and we toss Christianity Today into the trash and use the Bible alone.

    Besides, the alones are never alone – scripture goes along with Faith (alone) and Christ (alone) etc.

  43. Xenia says:

    Thanks for the explanation, which I will try to remember.

  44. PP Vet says:

    Thanks for the “Xplanation”, X.

    I think we agree that tradition has **value**.

    But you seem to believe tradition has **authority**.

    Big big difference.

  45. Xenia says:

    “Xplanation.” I like that.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

  46. Em says:

    Well, thinking as I’m reading the teachers here… I know many of the generation just following mine were burned by a misapplication/expectation of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit – perhaps some who post here were… But I’m here to tell you that I found the Bible as dull as the phone book (remember those?) before I came to terms with John 3:16… and after accepting God’s provision of redemption, “coming to Christ,” “born again,” the Bible came to life as I sat on the edge of my bed, alone in my room. Well, not really alone – remember God the Holy Spirit? I started in Acts and got a little understanding of our roots and then hit Romans, I & II Corinthians and wow! Yes, they made sense to me. I saw that God understood the human race and that in itself was a revelation. Did I get the deeper teachings there? No… well, maybe some… remember the manna?

    Well enough of this, I’m not a teacher… Just don’t lose sight of the truth that the Holy Spirit does work in us as a teacher, but only as far as we are ready – heart and mind – to receive spiritual food and we are not the deciders of this… Traditions serve, but they can swerve also… IMHO

  47. Jean says:

    “The only place that Sola Scriptura applies is in conflict between what the Bible says and what the Church / man says.”

    Unfortunately, this is a red herring. Nobody can do this. The Bible cannot be understood in some sort of unmediated, pure hermeneutic. Everyone of us is a creature of this/her culture, religious tradition, personal upbringing, generation, etc. One of the chief reasons churches and denominations split is over what the Bible “says.”

    I think we need to move beyond such a simplistic concept, because it just ain’t so. Our understanding of the Bible is always mediated. If that’s true, then one could argue that the church is the appropriate mediator of what the Bible says. I’m not necessarily advocating that, but it’s worth considering and may be biblical.

  48. Jean,
    What you are saying is that the Holy Spirit cannot superintend over His word and it must be farmed out.

    Look, riddle me this then – who is THE CHURCH that you want to assign as keeper of the Holy Bible.

    I think the Lutherans did a fine job 450 yrs ago with the Book of Concord – we ascribe to that as the best teaching and pure understanding of scriptures. In fact that is how we know that the ELCA has gone completely nuts and apostate.

  49. Jean says:

    MLD, If you’re a member of LCMS, you farm it out to the authoritative documents of the LCMS. The church is a body. It is meant to function as a body. I believe that extends to the the interpretation of Scripture on matters of doctrine.

  50. Em says:

    FWIW… everyone here is hitting on points that are valid… I don’t sense a spirit of rebellion at all (as was sometimes the case here in years gone by)… “how shall they (we) be taught except there be teachers…?” but, my question as I read here today is, when do teachers become dictators – and should they?
    Time sure flies as I ponder these threads, I’ve got to drive into town this a.m. and you folks have gotten me behind schedule…
    God keep

  51. Jean,
    Exactly – but we are a group of like minded Christians who have come to a Holy Spirit led conclusion about scriptures.

    We are not ready to turn it over to something called “the church” – I don’t know who “they” are.

  52. Jean says:

    Not that simple MLD. I would argue that in many cases, left alone we are incapable of distinguishing between what the Spirit may lead us to regarding the Bible and our individual presuppostions. Therefore, we are well advised to test our interpretations with other Christians to ascertain if it’s really the Spirit or the pizza I had for dinner last night.

    I totally understand that topics like “submission” and “mutual submission” are not in vogue.

  53. You must have some really good pizza there in the Midwest to be able to over ride the HS. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  54. Jean says:

    By the way, it’s only been in the last year or so, through dialoging with MLD (and learning about Issues, etc. and the Confessional Lutheran Fellowship on Facebook) and Xenia regarding EO, that I’ve gained a great respect and appreciation for church tradition. There’s a lot to tradition (and everything that goes with it) that is exemplary. I might say that there’s a lot that the traditionalists and non-traditionalists could learn from each other, but I won’t because I’m pretty sure I would have both groups firing at me.

  55. Bob says:

    ” THE CHURCH that you want to assign as keeper of the Holy Bible.”

    I neither believe nor want a church to be assigned “the keeper of the Holy Bible.” I fully believe God has demonstrated from the Beginning that He is more than able to be THE KEEPER of His Holy Words and lets men participate.

    I also agree with what someone wrote above that tradition does have great value but is not the authority. Many examples where traditions of men really are just plain worthless, no distractions, when it comes to walking with God in His ways.

    But it is interesting to read how MLD and Xenia approach the same text as others. There is value in reading what they have written.

  56. Xenia says:

    Bob, you all are good listeners. You may not agree with what I write but everyone who has participated in this thread has read what was written and at the very least said, “Hmmm, that’s a rather an interesting take on the subject.”

    Believe me, this is not what happens in many corners of the Internet.

  57. Jean says:

    “Many examples where traditions of men really are just plain worthless, no distractions, when it comes to walking with God in His ways.”

    This works both ways. If many Protestants in the western church hadn’t discarded tradition, we wouldn’t be watching Left Behind previews on TV because there would be no rapture theology.

  58. Steve Wright says:

    To Bob’s point – God preserving His word is a big part of the faith, to some extent as much as God giving His word since no original autographs exist..

  59. Jean says:

    Steve,

    What does “preserving His word” mean?

  60. Steve Wright says:

    God gave His word through the original writings of Paul and the others. The originals are inspired, while later copies may have the occasional manuscript errors, additions or deletions. There are no originals left, so how can we know we still have God’s word if He had not also, by His power, preserved it over the centuries of the copying process.

    And that is what textual criticism does in fact show today concerning the Scriptures. There is no doubt on the vast, vast majority of verses that we have today what the original was when inspired. On the very small minority where there can be some discussion and disagreement, we find that NO doctrines of the faith (fundamental or otherwise) rise or fall depending on which variant one chooses as original.

    This is all the more true when the same principles of textual criticism as a field of study are applied to any other famous ancient manuscripts. The Bible stands head and shoulders above them all. God made that happen.

  61. Jean says:

    Steve, I get all that and agree. I’m not aware that anyone was challenging the inspiration of Scripture. Maybe there are multiple conversations going on here.

  62. Have you guys ever read much into the theory that the New Testament Canonizes itself? Basically, there are several places where one book references another author (Peter with Paul, for instance) thus affirming their entry into the cannon. I’ve seen that mapped out before where only a book or two aren’t covered.

  63. covered says:

    Josh, did you say covered? ๐Ÿ™‚

  64. Steve Wright says:

    Jean, I was answering your question…you asked me.

    Yes, Josh, I think there is a lot of weight when Peter calls Paul’s writing, Scripture. Not sure of seeing it all mapped out though…But there were very few books seriously debated as to whether they were Scripture…and very few seriously debated for inclusion that were not.

  65. Jean says:

    Steve, I asked you what “preserving his word” meant. But when did the inspiration of Scripture ever become an issue? We were discussing issues involving how the cannon was decided upon and issues relating to authority to interpret Scripture.

  66. brian says:

    I dont know if this is wrong but I think it is safe to say the epistles were written maybe less than 20 years after the resurrection of Jesus. All the gospels were completed by the mid 90’s AD I E John, Mark maybe mid 50’s, Matthew and Luke mid to late 60’s Rev before 100 AD. It is also safe to say in my opinion that they were written by the authors ascribed to them. It is also safe to say imo that they hold very accurately to the original text and the translations for the most part are faithful. How far am I off from an orthodox pov of scripture.

  67. Brian, that is pretty close to what most conservative scholars believe.

  68. Steve Wright says:

    Steve, I asked you what โ€œpreserving his wordโ€ meant.
    ——————————————-
    And I answered you.

    What possible purpose or value could there be in saying we believe God gave us inspired Scriptures when in fact we don’t have a single one of them today.

    It’s a big issue…the preserving of His word.

  69. Jean says:

    Steve,

    “Itโ€™s a big issueโ€ฆthe preserving of His word.”

    I agree with you. But, I think everyone on here also agrees with you. But if you’re giving us talking points for use with doubters, that’s cool. Your logic is good. Thanks.

  70. Steve Wright says:

    My comment was just a sort of ‘amen’ to Bob who wrote above:

    I neither believe nor want a church to be assigned โ€œthe keeper of the Holy Bible.โ€ I fully believe God has demonstrated from the Beginning that He is more than able to be THE KEEPER of His Holy Words and lets men participate.

    God…not “the Church” is responsible for preserving His word, and He has done so. And He lets men participate in the process. Bob’s point is very important, and one I agree with fully.

  71. I think the point in question was what preserves the meaning of the words in the book. Does it help to have one source be the keepers and tell us what it means or do we each read it and come to a Lutheran conclusion (me) a Methodist conclusion (Jean) or a CC conclusion (Steve) or an Orthodox conclusion (Xenia)?

    Do we all go to Oz and ask our theological question?

  72. Jean says:

    #71,

    You can say it’s God all you want, but what actually happened is that a church council a long time ago (I assume prayerfully) decided the canonicity of the books which comprise our Bible. There are history books written about the process, although I personally have not studied this in detail. Perhaps Xenia or someone else can share the history of how the canon was decided.

    I understand that Mr. Luther wasn’t too thrilled with 1 or 2 of the selections .

  73. Jean says:

    #72,

    You are correct MLD. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, so we’re not going to OZ, but if we continue further down the path of “reader response” biblical interpretation, we’ll go from 50,000 popes to a billion+ popes. That would lead to the death of the church as we know it.

  74. #73
    the Antilegomena is interesting. Luther came from a long line of Christians who had some trouble with some of the books.

    Not that they weren’t scripture, but… well they were a little lower type scripture. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    But then that brings up – is the canon closed? Lutherans usually say no.

  75. Jean says:

    #73,
    Who to say some archeologist won’t eventually dig up Paul’s missing letter(s) to the Corinthians some day?

    What’s the Lutheran reasoning?

  76. We too are waiting for the real 1 Corinthians. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  77. Em says:

    As a Believer who gravitates to green pastures and still waters, it is interesting to read the ponders and conclusions of those who are deep in the woods of theology (not a bad thing, but a sobering place to be). From my morning reading (a blessing of retirement) may I claim Jeremiah 17:7,8 for us all.
    God keep

  78. Steve Wright says:

    a church council a long time ago (I assume prayerfully) decided the canonicity of the books which comprise our Bible
    ————————————————
    We are at a foundational disagreement then. Hinging on your use of “decided”

    As seen in even your speculation of finding one of Paul’s other letters, referenced in but not included in the New Testament.

    Even if a letter from Paul was found, and it was legit as to his authorship. So what? Not EVERYTHING Paul ever put pen to paper would have to be Scripture. All SCRIPTURE is inspired, not the authors. That is a big deal to recognize. The process of inspiration worked upon these men so that the finished writings (Scriptures) were the inspired word of God.

    And the alternative is that God somehow was NOT able to preserve His word. That we might still be awaiting some “latter day” revelation in the discovery of a new text by an old apostle.

    And common sense would tell us, do we really think James, the Lord’s brother, only wrote one letter in his entire lifetime as a Christian. That Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts and never dashed off a letter to someone. Ludicrous. So either we have a whole lot of Scripture missing from these men, or everything they wrote is NOT Scripture and God is more than capable of preserving what is in fact His word.

    Think of salvation – Sure, God uses us, and He used church councils, but we no more save anyone anymore than some council decided what was Scripture and God was stuck with the vote.

  79. Jean says:

    Em,
    Thanks for the verses (great chicken soup for the soul). And thanks for not including verse 9, oh, whoops I just saw it anyway. That was probably providential. ๐Ÿ™‚

  80. Steve,
    The place where we differ is that you say no way Jose will another bit of documentation be allowed into this closed canon – whereas folks like me and Jean might say – “well, the chances are good that we have it all, but nowhere did God write “The End” at the end.”

    So, we stay open. We are like Tom Bodett … we’ll leave the light on. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  81. Jean says:

    #79,
    Well Steve, “foundational” is about as foundational as a disagreement can get. If you feel comfortable cuffing God, have at it.

  82. Steve Wright says:

    Well, after 2000 years I would be very concerned that God kept His truth from His Church and wanted us to slug along down here without it…and I would be very concerned that someone could show up one day and convince a bunch of Christians that we have some new revelation we all now need to follow.

    If you feel that is “cuffing God” then fine. I think it exalts Him – I would hate to think that God A) would want to keep us in the dark or B) wants us to know new truth but He just does not have the power to make it happen. As if He is up there in the heavenlies yelling “Dig over there!!!” – Doesn’t say much for the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit.

    Since we do know that Paul wrote at least a couple things we don’t have, I find it amazing there is a serious argument here that maybe we don’t have the entire canon.

    I can’t imagine I am alone in this “cuffing” of God within this forum. Anyone else think God might show us some new canonical Scripture after almost 2000 years?

  83. Em says:

    Jean, glad the chicken soup was soul food – can’t make good soup without good ingredients. The deceitful heart? Yes, I have that handicap. The older I get the more I am convinced that, from Adam on, it is the heart of the man that the omniscient God judges. Yet I know He absolutely loves those who search out His plan and our role in it. We need brain-washing.

    just sayin…

  84. Jean says:

    By the way Em,

    Sarcasm can be difficult to judge on a blog. I want you to know that my #80 response to you was sincere (no sarcasm). I love those verses and appreciate being reminded of them.

  85. What are we missing? Maybe Joseph Smith was right?

    Nope. Cannon is closed.

  86. Em says:

    ” Anyone else think God might show us some new canonical Scripture after almost 2000 years?”
    Why would He?

    Jean, I sensed kindness in your post, but thank you for your concern – I’m used to being thought to be ‘simple minded’ – it doesn’t bother me much (or shut me up);, I’ve even exploited it a time or two…

  87. “Nope. Cannon is closed.”

    Josh – I am going to pull an old evangelical trick on you … so watch out.

    Can you show me that in the Bible?

  88. Em says:

    just pondering here… by definition the canon is closed…

  89. Em says:

    before I stop interjecting the inane here… My generation was congratulating ourselves on having ended the plagues with DDT and immunizations and government sanctioned beheadings stopped with the French Revolution… soon there would be liberty and justice (and ham sandwiches) for all… most of us didn’t live long enough to see today’s news… is it just another cycle – or ? ? ? dunno

  90. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – I can show you the promise of God to preserve His word. Now, I guess you could interpret that to mean He has a bunch of new, never discovered texts in jars “preserved” in some cave in the Middle East…but I don’t think so.

    Did Luther keep open the idea we didn’t have it all yet?

  91. Actually, Luther thought we had too much.
    It doesn’t hurt anything to keep it open … just in case since we do not know.

    But you take the position of knowing.

    And what if God did want to add – are you going to say no too? That’s what the Jews said.

  92. Steve Wright says:

    Exactly. It is a far different thing to argue against the inclusion of a book or books compared to the argument you are making. Luther would never entertain what you are suggesting, would he? Or at least as to what matters..he didn’t entertain it, did he?

    You might reread your New Testament if you think the Jews problem was rejecting NT Scripture. They rejected Him Who is the Fulfillment of their own (OT) Scriptures.

    So if God shows up with latter day revelation…will it basically be all the same stuff we already know and possess? (Why bother?) Or will there be new stuff that sheds a new light upon Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or salvation….you keeping a door open for that? You’ll have plenty of company in Utah and elsewhere with that mindset.

    I unapologetically take the position that there will not be any new Scriptures arriving on the scene.

    If I even suggested the possibility of new Scriptures TBD, to the flock I pastor, it would be grounds for dismissal. Its setting up God’s people for deception and false teachings.

    Stirring the pot is one thing, MLD, but promoting that sort of view is quite another. ๐Ÿ™‚

  93. Steve,
    my view is not dogmatic that the canon is open – it is more that we cannot say that it is closed. As I asked above, can you show me from the scriptures where God said The End – I am done talking.

    But then I am the one who complains about all the CC worship people who always say “God gave me this song” I think I am up to 237 songs in the Book of Psalms now. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  94. :I unapologetically take the position that there will not be any new Scriptures arriving on the scene. ”

    Well I take that view with the Rapture – but that doesn’t stop the conversation. ๐Ÿ™‚

  95. Josh Hamrick says:

    Jesus is the fulfillment and perfection of God’s revelation. What else is left to be said? As far as “show me in the Bible”, we could easily start with Revelation 22:18.

    If there is more to be added to Scripture, it will be on the other side of eternity. The story on this side is already complete. Seriously MLD. what new revelation do you expect? Another Messiah? It’s not gonna happen.

  96. Josh – it says the same thing in Deuteronomy “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.”

    Much was added after that.

    I don’t expect anything new. But I could ask the same – what are you afraid of that you have to say what God has not said “shut the door – no more!”

    I don’t think that Revelation was the last book written in Scriptures – I think the Gospel of John was written after Revelation, so I don’t think the warning was to not write after Revelation.

  97. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – to be clear on where you stand. Is your position only that it is possible some ancient lost apostolic writing might be found some day that would cause us all to need to buy new Bibles once Nelson and Zondervan added it in…

    Or do you leave open the door for a new revelation from a contemporary in our day…a new apostle or prophet to come along and say “Thus saith the Lord”

  98. Jean says:

    Neither MLD nor I are expecting any additional inspired scripture to be discovered and we believe the possibility is quite remote. We both believe that the revelation in the Bible is sufficient.

    Nevertheless, we acknowledge that God is God and we’re not. We can’t fathom the wisdom or power of the *sovereign* creator of the universe. When if there is a writing that God wants the church to have, but in His wisdom He doesn’t want it found until 2016. Does He have that right?

    Please don’t judge His love, justice, wisdom, etc. in dealing with His creation as He sees fit using the puny human intellect. None of us wants to end up like Job’s friends.

  99. Steve Wright says:

    Jean, your #99 is all fine and good except that exact logic can be used to promote any heresy someone wants to promote. Maybe God in His wisdom DID see that the Church was all messed up and so had good old Joe show up with his magic glasses to teach us some new things. Maybe Islam will reform itself from the violence and all the peaceful Muslims will find salvation if they only reject the terrorists. And on and on with the wildest claims.

    And yeah, arguing that some lost text is going to show up that God wanted hid from us for 2000 years but we need to have in 2016 is a wild claim too.

    It is quite a move to throw out the “judging God” card just because a guy is saying what the vast majority of the entire Church for millennia has said all along. The canon is closed and complete.

  100. Jean says:

    Steve, when Chuck Smith founded CC and published its “distinctives”, was he throwing out the way the majority of the entire Church for millennia had conducted itself? Should he have been condemned?

    Do you believe in the rapture? Tell us when that little nugget was discovered?

  101. Josh Hamrick says:

    First MLD, I’d say you are wrong about Revelation coming before John, but that is debatable among scholars. It would be of no importance to my argument though, as I would say that God is the author of both and no matter what order they were recorded, they ended up according to his perfect plan.

    2nd, I didn’t claim to give a full view of the sufficiency of Scripture. You snidely asked to see a verse, I easily provided one, (you provided another) but now you want a more complete argument. Well, I don’t have time. I could link you to about 5000 scholarly papers on the subject, but there’s no need. You can google if you want.

    3rd, you asked, “What are you afraid of that you have to say what God has not said โ€œshut the door โ€“ no more!โ€ –
    Are Jesus and Satan spirit brothers?
    Will you one day be the God of your own planet?

    Because Joseph Smith would definitely agree with you in this case.

  102. Josh Hamrick says:

    “Do you believe in the rapture? Tell us when that little nugget was discovered?”

    I would guess around 64 AD, give or take a few years.

  103. Jean says:

    Close Josh. 64 + around 1800 years.

  104. Josh Hamrick says:

    Are you specifically talking about the English word Rapture being used? Because in that case, you might be right. But if you are talking about the idea of rising to meet Him in the air, I’d start with 1st Thessalonians.

  105. Josh Hamrick says:

    And to all of you waiting around for the PS Testament, riddle me this…

    When Todd Bentley says that God told him to kick an old lady in the face, how do you know it’s not true? Remember, you can’t limit God. Can’t judge Him using human intellect.

    Maybe Bentley and Joseph Smith both have books in the PS Testament? How could you ever know? I mean doesn’t God have that right?

  106. Jean says:

    Josh,
    When conversation goes from the road into the ditch, I will take my leave. Please carry on without me.

  107. Josh,
    You are a church musician – do you believe it when someone says “god gave me this song?” Why is the musician right and the Todd Bentley wrong. I think all “god told me” must come from scripture only.

    My point is God never said “The End” and neither will I. God has never said “The End” but you are comfortable saying it for him.

  108. As for Revelation not being the last book (my view) then the passage you quoted only applied to Revelation – just as the similar passage in Deuteronomy applied only to those immediate commands – although it is always good sense not to add or subtract from what God says.

    Comparing us to Mormons is not helpful.

  109. Even when the books were ‘chosen’ at the councils, no one spoke of a “closed” canon. From the available books that were common around the church the said, these are scripture, these are questionable and these are not scripture at all. They never said and these 27 are the only books ever to be considered scripture – they didn’t think that way, it never entered their thought. They just wanted to settle the dispute over the known books.

  110. Jean says:

    MLD,
    What do Lutherans believe about prayer – is it ever a 2-way communication?

    I’m following up on your #108.

  111. Jean – You mean like when you come to a fork in the road and you pray “God which way should I go?” and he replies “take the left road.” – is that what you mean?

    I am being called for dinner – I will reply by the time you wake up. ๐Ÿ™‚

  112. Jean says:

    Yes, personal prayer for guidance.

  113. Em says:

    Why would God need to add more revelation to man than He has already supplied? … the Church has all the instruction it needs to track a walk with God – IMHO
    but as we move into an ever increasing iconoclastic world and, as dear Xenia was expressing, the brain washing of our children, where evil is good and good is evil etc. … ? dunno … frankly, I think my generation was half expecting that we were ushering in the millennium and now we’re watching imminent chaos on all sides
    your discussion here of a hanging canon… we could use a booster book or something .. but that’s a dangerous mindset, isn’t it? … I’m reduced to prayer

  114. Steve Wright says:

    MLD..answer my #98 please. I am genuinely curious

  115. Steve, I thought Jean answered your #98 pretty well in his #99.
    Your question was loaded with “gotcha” in both part A and Part B.

    Look, you stated in your #100 – “Jean, your #99 is all fine and good except that exact logic can be used to promote any heresy someone wants to promote. ”

    Really, you are protecting against heresy? All heresy, every bit of it comes directly from our current Bible today … an closed canon does protect against heresy.

  116. should read … a closed canon does NOT protect against heresy.

  117. To Jean’s question @ #111 – I do not believe in 2 way conversations with God the way you are probably expecting. I think I can speak for Lutheran theology … I don’t know about the common Lutheran in the pew.

    Prayer is communication with the Trinity – the triune God. I think we need to note that God promises to hear prayers that are offered in faith, but he does not promise to speak to us in prayer. Now this is where it gets a bit sticky and people go into a state of confusion.

    Prayer is a one way communication – we are speaking to God. Now God has promised to communicate with us – but this promise of communication comes in the form of his word – God does not promise to speak to us in our prayers.

    Does God answer prayer? Yes. If i pray that one of my kids needs healing – God acts, but not in his words to me, but in the improved health of my kid.

    So what about when I need guidance? God points me to what he has said in his word – a remembrance of what he has already said – perhaps the next day in my Bible reading. When I am at odds with a brother – God does not have a discussion with me – “have you tried this? Have you tried that?” No, what will happen is I will recall one of the many passages from scripture about reconciliation or something to that effect.

    Hey, that’s all I have for now.

    PS – if I have ever heard from God in prayer, I am sure it was a loud and clear “NO!!” ๐Ÿ˜‰

  118. Steve Wright says:

    Why won’t you answer the question, MLD. Jean didn’t answer it either. I already know you don’t “expect” anything…I want to know if your openness includes simply discoveries of old apostolic texts or new prophets/apostles with new revelation showing up today.

    Simple question.

    (I also think you are using ‘heresy’ way too broadly – the Mormons for example don’t get their heresy from the Bible but their own writings. Now if you think the pretrib rapture or refusing to baptize babies is heresy, then fine…Heresy actually, every bit of it, is refuted by our Bible – and derives from false teachers who can clearly be corrected by the Bible)

  119. brian says:

    You know I always found “revelation” was much more powerful when it came through human agency in our day to day lives. Of course this is rank heresy, Christians should not need such superstitious nonsense, which begs the question which is what we are all doing begging the question. I will be the first to admit, I dont get it, never have. Why cant God just talk to us, I think He does, but that is heretical because true Christians should never need, well anything. But that is a different post.

  120. Steve,
    First on the heresy – it has nothing to do with baptism or the rapture … those are just wrong views. But if you look at any real heretical teaching it always begins with someone taking Bible verses and using them for their purpose. If they did not try to ground their heresy in the bible, no one would believe or listen to them. Heck, if they weren’t tying it directly to the Bible it would be a heresy – it would just be faulty teaching or a new / different religion.

    Mormonism begins with this verse among the 100s they try to shoehorn into their devilish religion.

    John 10:16 – “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”

    Now to your constant snapping at my view on the canon not being closed, I don’t know how much more clear I can be – I have no, none, nada expectations – but God never said The End – the Scriptures never said, like Porky Pig “That’s all folks” … so I don’t demand a statement of faith saying it’s closed.

    What Jean did answer was that we are open to God being God and doing what he wants.

  121. “Josh,
    When conversation goes from the road into the ditch, I will take my leave. Please carry on without me.”

    Why this Jean? I thought we were having a good conversation. I was trying to ask legitimate questions? I apologize for offending.

    MLD,
    You asked, “do you believe it when someone says โ€œgod gave me this song?โ€ “.

    No, I don’t.

  122. “As for Revelation not being the last book (my view) then the passage you quoted only applied to Revelation ”

    Why? If God wrote them all, and God is not bound by time, why would the order of human discovery matter?

    2 – I’m not comparing you to Mormons. I am asking – If the canon is open, how do you know Joseph Smith (or another guy like him) is not telling the truth?

  123. Because scripture will not and cannot contradict itself or tell a different story. That is why I am sure if something genuinely, new came on the scene it would be fully embraced by all, you included because it would be so obviously from God.

    So, if someone shared your stage and said “โ€œgod gave me this song.”Would you say “get off my stage you false teacher.” ?

  124. “Because scripture will not and cannot contradict itself or tell a different story.”

    So, really, there is a “The End” when it comes to content, just maybe not volume?

    โ€œโ€œgod gave me this song.โ€Would you say โ€œget off my stage you false teacher.โ€ ?

    In general, it wouldn’t happen…but hypothetically, no, I’d talk to them about it later.

  125. I need to go out for my jog – but if you don’t take care of the false teacher right there on stage, you allow the church folks to leave thinking God speaks directly to this person and gives him “new words.”

    Off I go, but remember if you are going to write The End at the end of your Bible use green ink or some different color so all will know that it is not a part of God’s word.

  126. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – You still won’t answer. I am now assuming you are not just talking about finding an old lost letter of Paul’s but are allowing for some newcomer on the scene to write a new book.

    I think a discussion can be made about apostolic authority, seeing the risen Christ (or being associated with one who had) but I am done.

  127. Again, it wouldn’t happen…but hypothetically, if the song were about Maroni or something, yes, I’d stop it and kick the guy off the stage.

    But MLD has already said “The End” too. He said there will be no other story. So if something is added, it will be something we already know.

  128. Steve Wright says:

    Josh, the head of my seminary used to say “If we already have it, we don’t need it, and if it is new, we don’t want it”

    I admit to being bothered by even leaving the door open to NEW revelation, no matter how unlikely.

  129. Steve,
    Since you keep push, may I please push back? Can you show me in the scripture where it dictates that scripture can only be written by those “seeing the risen Christ (or being associated with one who had).”

    But now you can see why Church Fathers and Luther had issue with Hebrews and a couple of the other epistles.

  130. Steve Wright says:

    You’re right, MLD. There is zero reason for us to challenge anyone who shows up today claiming a latter day revelation from God. How silly of me to read Paul and his claims of apostolic authority ordained from God as an eyewitness of the resurrection as the reason he is to be obeyed in what he writes when many of his contemporaries were teaching something else.

    I don’t for a second think that your pastor would embrace the idea of you telling the flock you teach on Sundays, “Hey guys, I know it is unlikely, but remember God could always bring us some new revelation in these days. Prove to me from the Bible otherwise” – Maybe I am wrong but I know that the vast majority of pastors out there would take corrective steps if someone in the church was teaching that to the people.

    Of course, since it now looks like you are arguing that any “new” revelation would not be new at all, but rather more like a Bible commentary or summary of what we already have, then the issue subsides greatly, though still very much in error – though that certainly is NOT the point Jean made earlier about God in His wisdom holding out some truth until 2016 when we now need it. (The quote in the post you affirmed – When if there is a writing that God wants the church to have, but in His wisdom He doesnโ€™t want it found until 2016.)

    (And you know Luther can’t be lumped in with the Church fathers on this issue. Luther’s problem was not with apostolic authorship but with CONTENT…to his shame I would add. In fact, one of the factors the councils took into consideration when recognizing the canonical books as such involved the authority of the writers.)

    Now I truly am done. I doubt Michael would entertain the notion you have tossed out there to the readership, and I think it needed a response in his absence. But no need to just go around in circles.

  131. MLD’s problem seems to be with the doctrine of Inspiration, the idea that some guys were specially inspired to Write Scripture, and the rest of us weren’t.

  132. As I leave for work let me just point out the trick of evangelical cornering and twisting. Jean and I were very very clear as to what we meant in our very first comments at #76 & #77 and we were even more clear later as we said we had no expectations of scriptural additions – none.

    But the evangelical mind cannot accept anything that has not already been poured into them by their teachers – they have no open ends.

    I feel bad for people with a theology fueled by closed mindedness.

  133. I don’t even understand the other side of this conversation.

  134. Jean says:

    Here’s a question for everyone: If a missing letter were to be discovered, what would you like to read about?

    For me, I’d love to read about the acts of the apostle Junia ๐Ÿ™‚

  135. Jean, I hope I didn’t offend you earlier. I’m taking this as a pretty light conversation, though we are in disagreement.

    Are you convinced that Junia was an Apostle?

  136. Ixtlan says:

    This has been a fun read. I think both sides, one knowingly and the other unwittingly, have opened the door to the possibility of the importance of tradition in the church. After all, aren’t most sermons, commentaries, articles in periodicals a reworking of what we [in part] already know? It is not so much the focus on something new but on contextualization of what we already have.

  137. Steve Wright says:

    we were even more clear later as we said we had no expectations of scriptural additions โ€“ none.
    ————————————-
    Actually, Josh and I are clear that there are no scriptural additions to come. So I don’t know why you are arguing with us if your view is the same.

  138. What I would like to read if there were another Testament (which there won’t be one.)
    Jesus: The Teenage Years

  139. Jean says:

    Josh,

    Nothing you wrote offended me. I appreciate your concern and hope as well that I did not offend you.

    “Are you convinced that Junia was an Apostle?”

    The older I get the fewer the things I’m convinced of, but of the few things I am convinced of my convictions have grown stronger.

  140. PP Vet says:

    I think what’s important is, what is scripture to you? As long as you find it meaningful for your own life.

  141. Muff Potter says:

    Josh @ # 139:

    John closes his written Gospel saying that there were many other things that Jesus did and were not written down. I believe them not because of what this scholar or that theologian says about Jesus, I believe them because I choose to believe them. They speak to me on a gut level completely independent of what pastor X or clergyman Y says.

  142. Steve @138
    “So I donโ€™t know why you are arguing with us if your view is the same.”

    We are not quite the same. I am open to a genuine work of God being handed down – you on the other hand, no matter how genuine would reject it.

    If Paul, after the establishment of the Church could be a man out of season and see the resurrected Jesus and then write 13 Books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – why could that same scenario not happen today? – Jesus came out of heaven to meet Paul on the road to Damascus, why could he not come out of heaven today and meet you along the I-15 and have you write the Book of Steve. ๐Ÿ™‚

  143. Jean says:

    “why could he not come out of heaven today and meet you along the I-15 and have you write the Book of Steve.”

    I think we’re all getting the early drafts on here ๐Ÿ™‚

  144. Em says:

    “We are not quite the same. I am open to a genuine work of God being handed down…”

    uh? from whom? to whom? or would it just be a diary?

  145. “uh? from whom? to whom? or would it just be a diary?”

    Em, that is why I say a GENUINE work of God – something that is indisputable. Aren’t you open to that?

  146. Isn’t disputable?!?

    Is there a book in the bible now that hasn’t been disputed?

    So, now you have a level of hypothetical discovery that goes like: The heavens open, the Hand of God reaches through the clouds in full view of every believer in the world and hands us a book. To reach your level of authenticity, that’s what would have top happen. In that case, yeah, I’m on board.

  147. Or, to us who are Holy Spirit led, there is no dispute when the Holy Spirit says “delivery from God.”

    But Josh – if you are on board at that level you are in mine and Jeans camp – that the canon is not closed because even as you have stated, there is that remote possibility that you it could happen. Welcome in. ๐Ÿ™‚

  148. Steve Wright says:

    you on the other hand, no matter how genuine would reject it.
    —————————————-
    Josh answered this silliness well in #147. Yeah, I’m on board too.

    But since Paul said he was the last of all to see the risen Christ, an apostle born out of due time (there is your Scripture..now go ahead and argue with what seems pretty clear in both the text and history of the church) – I would far more likely believe an angel of light had been sent to deceive me on the I-15 than I would the Lord Himself make a special guest appearance before His Return

  149. Steve Wright says:

    MLD – your #148….ready to argue if God can make a rock He can’t lift now? Or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? ๐Ÿ™‚

  150. “the Lord Himself make a special guest appearance before His Return”

    He makes a guest appearance every weekend at my church – perhaps this is why we differ on the other. ๐Ÿ™‚

  151. Em says:

    #150 – my late husband’s answer: “Yes. God could make a rock that He could not lift, but He’s too smart to do that…”

    on the other hand, perhaps He did create an angel that He can’t lift, but will dispose of another way…

  152. When is Mark Driscoll’s 6 weeks up? If he comes back to a full house and a standing O is it all done on the blogosphere?

    Will it be “the people have spoken?”

  153. TheoS. says:

    His six weeks were up last Sunday. No show.

  154. I am traveling and can’t post much but Fr. Stephen Freeman has responded to Michael’s link above:

    http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/10/10/church-scriptures/

  155. Ixtlan says:

    Interesting article by Mr. Freeman. He has some really good points, but he also used the same straw-man argument misrepresenting tenants of Protestantism that is becoming all too typical with orthodox bloggers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.