Bibliolatry - the hidden idolatry.

[Fnerb]

Yes, you have explained that. Out of curiousity, where does the Lutheran Catechism/creeds fit in? (sorry, I am not familiar with their actual names). However, what I have found is that the men and women of your community will interpret Scriptures based on how Luther or Melancthon did, with some minor adjustments. So in effect, Luther's theology is your paradigm on HOW you read the Scriptures.

I am not condemning you, just making an observation. I have been reading St. Irenaeus lately (Against Heresies, 180 AD) and HE TOO noted that the Gnostics read the exact same Bible, but they came up with a different interpretation of it. We Catholics say that same thing about the various Protestants 1800 years later. We read the same bible but you interpret it differently. As Irenaeus noted, only those who read the Bible with the Rule of Faith in mind can correctly understand God's intent. Today, we call the Rule of Faith the Creed. But ignoring Apostlic teachings and the paradigm brings out a different reading.

You are right. While any sort of instruction or bible class I have gone to within our church holds to the hermenutic - "Let scripture interpret scripture" there is obviously going to be some ... "bias" when reading scripture if you have a certain basis for your belief.

Obviously this scriptural debate will continue. We aren't going to solve it here on these forums, and odds are none of us are going to forsake our belief system based off of the the discussions. However, at the end of the day, how can any of us (Catholic or Prodestant alike) do anything but pray:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

I agree with you. We cannot be saved without works proving our faith - but works do not come about automatically because we have faith. James specifically says that!

I agree. But that doesn't mean that I believe that my good works are my ticket to heaven.

My point is that if it wasn't for Melancthon, Luther would have gotten rid of James, and probably Revelation and some of John's epistles. While I applaud Luther's desire to reform the Church, his actions after his confrontation with Eck went downhill, to include attempting to re-write the Scripture canon. Is this God's Scripture or Martin Luther's?

Maybe, maybe not.

To answer your question though, it's God's scripture. And for us to banter back and forth regarding Luther is a moot point. Once we get to heaven, we'll have to meet up and smack ourselves on the head for all of this. :

 

[francisdesales]

You are right. While any sort of instruction or bible class I have gone to within our church holds to the hermenutic - "Let scripture interpret scripture" there is obviously going to be some ... "bias" when reading scripture if you have a certain basis for your belief.

Obviously this scriptural debate will continue. We aren't going to solve it here on these forums, and odds are none of us are going to forsake our belief system based off of the the discussions.

Absolutely correct.

My point in bringing this all up is to help others recognize this fact that you note. In the last month, I have heard a barrage of "Catholics do not follow the Scriptures" etc., when this is patently false. We all read the same bible, but read it differently. We all consider the Bible an authority - but WHOSE intepretation has authority? I have had a hard time having people see this - but I see you understand that.

I also agree that these forums will very rarely bring about a "conversion", unless there is a lurker out there on the fence. Most of the posters are solid in their own camp, and I have discovered that faith goes beyond logical arguments.

Regards

 

[stranger]

First off to preface this, because I am a member of a Lutheran church that follows Lutheran Theology, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I or "we" believe that Luther's word is the final verdict. Scripture can stand on it's own to legs. (Athough, me arguing that is probably moot in this case).

Hi Fnerb,

A couple of comments, while it is true that Luther didn't want a church named after him, and while it may also be true that 'enemies' gave the Lutherans a name that stuck - that fact is the Lutheran Church has been content with this name or they would have changed it.

Would it be true to say that ONLY something as radical as changing the name of the Lutheran Church, particularly the 'Lutheran' bit - would in fact free the church from the dominance or the shadow of Luther's theology?

I also see that Luther's theology is authoritative/ influencial - to what extent or degree is another matter. As a member of the Lutheran church (at present I attend a Presbyterian church) I do assert that Luther has been on a 'pedestal' for a long time. This observation is one that was made from the 'inside'.

 

[stranger]

Over time it has become easier to adapt the label for the sake of identify one's practice of the Christian faith/theology.

In other words, I will call myself a Mennonite not to associate with Menno Simmons, but to easier describe how I practice the Christian faith. I believe orthodoxy and orthopraxis (doctrine and practice) must go hand in hand.

Hi,

What your saying translated to the Lutheran argument is this: I call myself a Lutheran not to associate with Martin Luther. . .ditto. Is this an example of doing the very thing I hate? Rom 7.

 

[Guest]

Hi,

What your saying translated to the Lutheran argument is this: I call myself a Lutheran not to associate with Martin Luther. . .ditto. Is this an example of doing the very thing I hate? Rom 7.

I am not sure I follow the question. To be honest, the answer I usually give when someone asks me about where I go to church or my beliefs - is that I attend a Mennonite Church. I try to associate myself as a Christian, and an Anabaptist.

 

[stranger]

I am not sure I follow the question. To be honest, the answer I usually give when someone asks me about where I go to church or my beliefs - is that I attend a Mennonite Church. I try to associate myself as a Christian, and an Anabaptist.

You said you call yourself a Mennonite - that's what I refer to as self identification. So your self id would presumeably be:

Christian, Mennonite and Anabaptist.

 

[Guest]

You said you call yourself a Mennonite - that's what I refer to as self identification. So your self id would presumeably be:

Christian, Mennonite and Anabaptist.

There is an old mennoite story that goes something like this:

An evangelist came was in town, and came up to an old mennonite farmer. After some discussion, the evangelist asks the farmer if he is saved. The farmer responds: "I could tell you anything you wanted to hear, but if you really want to know if I am a Christian or not - you will have to ask my neighbors."

Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I attend a Mennonite church, and yes I am an Anabaptist in how I practice my Christian faith.

But if you really want to know who I am - ask those who know me.

 

[cyberjosh]

That makes the bible better, in a sense.

Wait a minute, did I just catch the insinuation that Mary being in the Bible makes the Bible better? That's a blaspemous idea. It's the Bible that validates Mary, not Mary that validates the Bible!

However, Mary is a "school" for millions of Christians throughout the ages, especially in the days before literacy was common among people

Uh... are you saying Mary instructs and teaches people? Right, I guess that falls in with the people who have seen the phenomenon of the Sun bouncing on/toward the horizon (Miracle of the Sun I think it's called), seeing appirations of Mary (Our Lady of Fatima), and experiencing stigmata.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Wait a minute, did I just catch the insinuation that Mary being in the Bible makes the Bible better? That's a blaspemous idea. It's the Bible that validates Mary, not Mary that validates the Bible!

Several things going on here that I need to comment on.

First, unless you DO worship the Bible, I find the comment on blaspeming strange.

Second of all, you need to calm down and read what I wrote. Here it is again...

Josh wrote: But Joe, the Bible tells us about Jesus - Mary doesn't.


I responded: The Bible tells us about both. That makes the bible better, in a sense.

Now, I don't know where you came up with your "insinuation". I merely said in reply to you that the Bible tells us about both - Jesus and Mary. I didn't state that the Bible is made better because Mary is in it!!! Before you make such accusations, and saying I am blaspheming (!), you might want to be more careful with what I actually wrote. I don't take kindly to being told I am blaspheming God ...

Uh... are you saying Mary instructs and teaches people? Right, I guess that falls in with the people who have seen the phenomenon of the Sun bouncing on/toward the horizon (Miracle of the Sun I think it's called), seeing appirations of Mary (Our Lady of Fatima), and experiencing stigmata.

Yes, Mary instructs people by using her as a model. Paul also teaches the same thing. As does Jesus. "Learn from me" "imitate me". Who in the New Testament most exemplifies the humble and obedient servant of the Lord? By meditating on the moments of her life and watching how she reacted, we see she is a wonderful teacher on how to be a disciple of Christ.

As to Fatima, that was seen by 80,000 people, some atheists, who commented on the miracle when interviewed. You would be hard pressed to deny that it happened. There is more documentation and eye witness accounts that it happened than the Resurrection. An unbiased person would have no excuse to believe the later and not the former. Why are you biased against it, Josh?

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

Exodus 20:5: you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. Get it? We serve nothing but God and not Mary.


May God bless, Golfjack

 

[stranger]

Re: reply

Exodus 20:5: you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. Get it? We serve nothing but God and not Mary.
May God bless, Golfjack

Hi golfjack,

According to Saphir's article - do you think it is theoretically possible that men can make an idol of the bible, and so miss Jesus as the Jews did?

 

[Guest]

Re: reply

Hi golfjack,

According to Saphir's article - do you think it is theoretically possible that men can make an idol of the bible, and so miss Jesus as the Jews did?

I realize that I am not golfjack, I hope that you do not mind that I provide an answer as well:

I would say that anything put onto or above the level of God - is an idol.

or to put it another way, anything that takes away complete and uninterupted devotion to God is an idol.

 

[golfjack]

reply

I believe we must realize that the Bible is the written Word of God, and we worship the One who wrote it.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[stranger]

Re: reply

I realize that I am not golfjack, I hope that you do not mind that I provide an answer as well:

I would say that anything put onto or above the level of God - is an idol.

or to put it another way, anything that takes away complete and uninterupted devotion to God is an idol.

I don't mind - it is a common practice to add comments such as yours. I agree, what I am striving for is to identify the more 'subtle' forms of idolatry - a block of stone like a statute of Buddha when worshipped is not 'subtle'. After the reformation - according to Saphir 'idolatry' by necessity has taken on more subtle forms. Whenever I come across statements like what John Owen calls the cruellest deception - 'knowing that Jesus saves but not being saved' - I think idolatry is the prime cause. Men it seems must worship - the question is who or what? Again is it possible that men can actually worship the bible? The impressions I have been getting is that many Protestants (but definitely not all) don't think that it is even possible.

 

[stranger]

This is what needs to be said:

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO DENOUNCE, OR EXPOSE IDOLATRY - IT HAS TO BE CONFESSED. I confess it openly thereby maintaining the living hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[cyberjosh]

First, unless you DO worship the Bible, I find the comment on blaspeming strange.

No its not strange, not really. Unless you don't appreciate the fact that Jesus said that his very words (which are recorded in the Gospels) will be the very words with which we will be judged. And if you believe that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit then any degredation to that Word can be considered rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit (the root of the unforgivable sin).

Note also that the Bible says, "Whoever despises the word shall be destroyed" (Proverbs 13:13). I don't believe you do despise it, but I actually found your objection strange - in relation to the infallible inspired word of God.

Now, I don't know where you came up with your "insinuation". I merely said in reply to you that the Bible tells us about both - Jesus and Mary.

Well first of all you misunderstood what I said then. I meant that the Bible tells us about Jesus. But Mary hasn't and cannot tell us about Jesus - unless you claim she can appear in appirations and speak with her admirers.

I didn't state that the Bible is made better because Mary is in it!!!

Well I did put a question mark at the end of my question, but what then did you mean by "makes it better"?

As to Fatima, that was seen by 80,000 people, some atheists, who commented on the miracle when interviewed. You would be hard pressed to deny that it happened. There is more documentation and eye witness accounts that it happened than the Resurrection. An unbiased person would have no excuse to believe the later and not the former.

Oh I don't deny that it could have happened but I question as to its origin. It is no secret that Satan has made similar appearances to cult leaders in seances and the like, and not to mention Satan can himself appear as angel of light. Infact even Muhammad is vindicated in part because his revelation probably was indeed supernatural - but he was decieved by a demon who called himself Gabriel (who Muslims & the Quran also call the Holy Spirit).

Satanic phenomenon can even be observed in the Church - take some of the more radical pentecostal and charistmatic denominations for example. Some of their "gifts of the spirit" are indeed supernatural - but have no subsequent proof of being from God - and some are quite useless and only cause confusion such as the uncontrollable "holy laughter". God is not the author of confusion - nor superstition.

And speaking of useless and incredible occurances, the Miracle of the Sun phenomenon - if such a vision/mass halucination happened - serves no Christian/Godly purpose whatsoever and only instills superstition in the viewers - for what purpose? These are what the Bible calls lying signs & wonders. They can lead people astray. The Bible says "test the spirits". I advise caution in what you believe.

I have good reason to doubt the validity and authenticity of such visions of Mary or otherwise. IMO.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[golfjack]

reply

Psalm 37:13: The Lord laughs at him, for He sees his day is coming. If the Lord can laugh, I certainly can.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[francisdesales]

I first wrote: First, unless you DO worship the Bible, I find the comment on blaspeming strange.

No its not strange, not really.

It is my opinion that it is strange that you would accuse me of blaspheming against God when I said that the Bible contained information about Mary and Jesus. For some odd reason, you thought that was an attack on the Bible - so you accused me of blasphemy.

Apparently, by your defense of your position (rather than stating you misunderstood me and left it at that), you do worship the Bible...

The Word of God has been made flesh. Not ink.

Worshiping this "god" is idolatry. Your defense is making me more certain that you worship a book rather than the God behind the writings of the book. If I am incorrect, please let me know. However, this line of discussion is making me think otherwise.

Unless you don't appreciate the fact that Jesus said that his very words (which are recorded in the Gospels) will be the very words with which we will be judged.

Does the Bible judge me? I thought God judges me. See, you are continuing to show how you worship the bible rather than God. This is getting silly.

And if you believe that the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit then any degredation to that Word can be considered rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit (the root of the unforgivable sin).

How have I done that, Josh? When did I degrade God's Word? Read my post. I note that Jesus and Mary are in the Bible. That's blasphemy? That's very strange of you to say that.

Note also that the Bible says, "Whoever despises the word shall be destroyed" (Proverbs 13:13). I don't believe you do despise it, but I actually found your objection strange - in relation to the infallible inspired word of God.

Can you explain what you are talking about? I don't have a clue.

Oh I don't deny that it could have happened but I question as to its origin. It is no secret that Satan has made similar appearances to cult leaders in seances and the like, and not to mention Satan can himself appear as angel of light.

And the Pharisees called Jesus Beelzebub. And naturally, if they called Jesus the devil, his followers would be similarly attacked. We can know that a vision or a manifestation is from God IF it aids in our faith or brings about the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, it is not from God. I think you are going to have to show me exactly how Fatima has not done that.

On the other hand, I could say that Luther was possessed by the devil because it brought about a split in the Body. Christ prayed that we may all be one. Thus, anything that DIRECTLY breaks this union CANNOT be from God. As a result, we could say the Protestant Reformation was demon-spawned, no?

I don't think you want to go down this path, Josh. All it is going to do is force us to point accusing fingers at each other. Rather, we should try to come together and discuss these things as mature adults.

Satanic phenomenon can even be observed in the Church - take some of the more radical pentecostal and charistmatic denominations for example. Some of their "gifts of the spirit" are indeed supernatural - but have no subsequent proof of being from God

Again, it takes discernment and time to sort out if such supernatural things are from God or are from the devil. I don't think it is so easy. That is why the Church doesn't give official condonement to such private visions and revelations. The most the Church will do, such as Fatima or Lourdes (where hundreds have been healed) is say they are worthy of devotion. If I was to see some sort of miraculous event, I would certainly have to see the long term effects to determine if it was from God. "Does it enhance or build up the Body or not?"

And speaking of useless and incredible occurances, the Miracle of the Sun phenomenon - if such a vision/mass halucination happened - serves no Christian/Godly purpose whatsoever and only instills superstition in the viewers - for what purpose? These are what the Bible calls lying signs & wonders. They can lead people astray. The Bible says "test the spirits". I advise caution in what you believe.

I am cautious. Trust me. I believe Fatima is worthy of further exploration. I believe that its fruits are clearly in favor of considering it from God. You dismiss it out of hand merely because Mary was involved in it. This is not the attitude of one in search of truth, but one intent on preserving their own idea of how things are. That is what your reasons for doubt are based upon. You believe in the Resurrection of Christ, yet no one witnessed it. Eighty thousand people saw something supernatural in 1917, and you dismiss it out of hand. People began to pray for the fall of Communist atheist Russia at the request of the Blessed Virgin - and it happened... I would say their is very strong evidence this was from God. Yours is not a very consistent attitude for someone in search of the Truth.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: reply

I believe we must realize that the Bible is the written Word of God, and we worship the One who wrote it.

I believe that Mary was created by God as a pure vessel to bring forth the Word, the new Ark of the Covenant, and we worship the One who "built" her.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Re: reply

I believe that Mary was created by God as a pure vessel to bring forth the Word, the new Ark of the Covenant, and we worship the One who "built" her.

Regards

Where is the evidence of this?