One is saying keep the law for salvation. That’s false teaching.
Five is simply saying keep the law. That’s not false teaching...
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Can the Bible become an Idol and if so what does that look like?
- Thread starter Soldier's Psalm
- Start date
One is saying keep the law for salvation. That’s false teaching.
Five is simply saying keep the law. That’s not false teaching...
I don't think anyone is making that assumption. I'm at least working around the idea of how can a Bible scholar who lives it to the tee be capable of not knowing God which is best case scenario to killing Christians like Paul which is worse case. Is this where the path leads if you spend all your effort trying to know about God and not trying to know God? One of the things that cued this thought was I had some friends go to seminary and some of the stuff they were taught by well educated theologians was madness. The theologians loved the book and had devoted there lives to it but they had missed God by miles. I am not downing the Bible at all. I am just not equating it too God. If Idolizing the scripture produces a religious phariseeical spirit then I would say it is by far the deadliest weapon Satan has formed.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
The scriptures do not have eternal life. They rather testify of Jesus who does.
They are our compass and map but not our destination.
Last edited:
And yet in 24.
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Same guys
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Same guys
This is referring back to the group mentioned in verse 1 this was why Paul went to Jerusalem. They were teaching them to keep the law for salvation. The group spoken about in verse 5 was already present in Jerusalem. It’s a different group that was never spoken against in the entire passage. Also notice the group in verse one are not said to be Pharisees.
This is getting off topic so feel free to split this off if you think it best.
I know that the idea of keeping the law runs counter to mainstream teaching and therefore the default assumption is that those in verse 5 were false brethren but that’s not what the passage actually teaches. Paul never stopped being a Pharisee he testifies later in a court of law that he is (present tense) a Pharisee, also he never converted to anything. The footnotes in your bible are not inspired.
Ok you're hitting on a key thing there. Many Christians look at the Bible and its words/message as if they are magic. But in truth the Holy Spirit has to play a roll...
Which also touches upon my point about the Greek approach being one of seeking knowledge/wisdom.
see also John 6:44, 1 Cor 12:3, Matt 11:25
That not being a uniform movement, that is not surprising. But it could equally be that you simply never asked a pastor the right question in the right way to elicit that response. The average pew sitter won't have, even if the pastor believes it.
It could even be that they would deny it if asked about that belief outright, but if you asked them about a Charismatic practice would say that very same thing in defense of their position.
I assure you that I was never an average pew sitter. That belief was not espoused or promoted by any ministry that I was ever involved with. I was close personal friends with the leadership in all of the churches that I attended since basically high school. I know their beliefs inside and out. I was even involved in some level of leadership at varying degrees in all of them...
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that some people, in arguing against the Pentecostals, will say that the Holy Spirit doesn't work today. That He only came to give us the scriptures and now God works only through the Bible. That's not to say the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, but it is to say He doesn't operate anymore which is very dangerous and contradicts many passages of the NT. It is essentially a rejection of the Holy Spirit because they are rejecting the working of the Holy Spirit in their life. And that is very dangerous...
I will attempt to explain what I mean. From the gospel of John...
So the word = God = Jesus. Jesus was the word incarnate in flesh. Now when someone holds up a Bible and says 'this is the word' or 'the word of God', they are literally saying that that individual book is God/Jesus incarnate in paper form. That might not be what they mean in their mind, but that is what they are literally saying in English. You could say they are misspeaking from thoughtlessness, lack of vision, or lack of knowledge, but that is what they are nevertheless saying. This is akin to making their Bible an idol, since it isn't actually God made paper.
Now that might seem crazy. But remember, most Christians in this world are part of a group which actually thinks that when blessed, the communion cracker literally turns into the body of Christ. God incarnate in paper isn't much different than that. Not to mention that some men teach that God only works directly on earth via the teaching of the Bible or that the Holy Spirit no longer works amoung us since we now have the Bible. For those people, the Bible IS the only manifestation of God at work today. So in practical terms, if not theological ones, it is their only God with us. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mere characters in history, distant figures who exist, but are not here.
Now if you look at the writings of the Bible you'll see they call themselves scriptures; i.e. holy writings. These are writings which were inspired by God and contain the messages of God. In a way you could say they contain the words of God as spoke to the prophets and Apostles. So it is a fine distinction in a way; but there is a distinction nonetheless.
But nevertheless, when you call the scriptures 'the word' that is like saying they are God in paper form. Words mean things. If you don't think that the Bible is God incarnate, don't say it that way; call them the scriptures.
So ALL Protestant denominations draw their lines of separation between themselves based on set's of theological beliefs; that shouldn't be controversial. But when we break fellowship over theological matters, we're essentially saying they're no longer Christian because they believe wrong. That is essentially "right belief = salvation". That might not be how you feel, but that is the theological underpinning of the action. Prior generations were more literal about it. During the Reformation most Protestants and Catholics didn't just call them heretics, they burned them at the stake like witches.
Likewise if you look at a typical evangelical Gospel presentation what do you see? Believe in Jesus. Confess Jesus. Etc. This is right knowledge = salvation. Some people include more than that, but not all and even then that is the essence of it. But there is more to it that that, even the Devil believes, but he is not saved. You need only look at the lordship salvation controversies to see an example of this.
Likewise what do they do in their church life? Lots of Bible studies and sermons. You won't have a Sunday meeting without a sermon. You could call it the only Protestant ordinance; since they don't practice the traditional ordinances of the church on a weekly basis. That may not seem out of the ordinary unless you've immersed yourself in history/the scriptures and seen all the other spiritual disciplines and practices (love feast, prayer, fasting, evangelism, various one-anothers, etc.) that could be practiced but we rarely if ever do. Outside of a half dozen short songs, our corporate and private practice is almost exclusively focused on knowledge acquisition. There is a saying, if you want to know what a person really believes, look at what they do, not just what they say.
Now will a Protestant say... you attain salvation through perfect belief? Not likely. But that is effectively where they've arrived in many cases; even if they don't realize it, even if they don't like it or agree.
And really, what is all that talk condemning 'works based salvation' other than to say essentially that salvation is attained only through right belief. And for the more legalistic/conservative/fundamental that rapidly approaches 'only through perfect belief'.
In Acts 21:24,25 Paul is basically coerced to outwardly perform the completion phase of a vow with some other men who have made a vow to disprove that he is not anti Torah, and that he walkest orderly, and keeps the law.
“As touching the Gentiles which believe, (post conversion) we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing (the law) save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
At best, following the law post conversion is a Jewish injunction. There is no imperative to do so (per the apostles) unless you are Jewish and even that is arguable under the new covenant where there is now no distinction between Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female but we are all one in Christ.
Acts 21:24,25 is a reference back to the Acts 15 conference that Paul is referring to in Galatians 2. (I looked for another conference that was even close to these parameters and couldn’t find one even close). To say that the only issue refuted in Acts 15 is a pre conversion issue, rather than a pre and post conversion issue, is to ignore that the men who had come to Antioch were attempting to coerce Believers into circumcision, not prospective believers. Paul makes clear that these men were attacking believers on both fronts, pre and post conversion in Galatians 3:3. Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit (conversion), are ye now (post conversion) made perfect by the flesh?
These psuedo brethren were also attempting to ostracise Gentile Believers who weren’t Torah observant based on a Torah principle found in Exodus 34:15. This is the same principle that Peter wrestled with personally in chapter 10 and was bludgeoned about the head and shoulders with in Chapter 11:2,3 by those of the circumcision. They didnt back off until Peter used the “God told me too” trump card for their legitimate Torah objections.
It also ignores that both sides of the argument in Antioch go to Jerusalem to ask this question of the apostles and elders. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem . . .”
Verse 4 is Paul and Barnabas presenting their side of the argument, and verse 5 is the other side presenting their arguments. Whether or not the exact Pharisees presenting the argument were the same exact men who were creating dissection in Antioch, or whether they were deferring the presentation to others of the circumcision (that sent them out) is irrelevant. They were all of the same persuasion and prosecuted the same charge(s).
IMO, These are the same “certain men” of verse one that come to Antioch, the same “certain other of them” from verse 2 that return to Jerusalem. The same “certain of the sect of Pharisees” in verse 5 that present the prosecution, and the same “certain which went out from us that have troubled you, subverting your souls” in verse 24.
The sentence given is the same recorded in Acts 21 passage as well as in the letter sent to the churches that state: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be (1) circumcised and (2)keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
The proscription for Gentiles to keep the Mosaic law is counter to apostolic instruction.
As to Paul extolling his Pharisee credentials, there are two places where Paul does this. Once in the legal challenge, but this was only done to divide the multitude that was arrayed against him, not to necessarily align himself with Torah. Acts 23:6&7. A bit misleading to try to use this example to prove Torah observant.
The second is in Philippians 3:5-8 and is an account of his history and pedigree. His past (unless he needed to divide and conquer). But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. . . .. 8 for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. (His status as blameless in the righteousness of the law is also included in the dung category)
Please note. New thread has been created here https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/acts-15-galatians-2-to-c-or-not-to-c.14755/
To continue this thought.
I’m sorry, but not only is that not what the majority of protestants believe, that’s not even logical. That’s like saying, the Bible says to love your enemies and it says to love God, part of our love for God is worship, therefore we should worship our enemies.
King David refers to Scripture as God’s word
Psalm 119:11 KJV
[11] Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
11 I have stored up your word in my heart,that I might not sin against you.
Psalms 119:11 | ESV
Referring to Scripture as God’s word is not claiming that the Bible is literally God.
Transubstantiation is part of RCC doctrine not protestant. There are some protestants who believe that but they are not the majority.
Who are the “some men” you are referring too? It’s certainly not the majority of protestants. The vast majority of protestants believe the Holy Spirit still works today, in fact it’s an essential part of their doctrine. What works of the Holy Spirit would you say are being prevented in protestant churches?
Yeshua instructed his Disciples to make disciples of all nations and to teach them all that He had commanded. Where do we go to find out all that Christ commanded? Studying the scriptures or the word of God when we assemble together is what christians are supposed to do. Praying, fasting, teaching the word, and fellowshiping together is all part of what we are to do, and is what all assemblies with sound doctrine do and the way we know that is by studying scriptures or God’s word.
Paul said that if anyone came preaching another gospel, let them be accursed or damned to Hell. I would say that believing the right thing is pretty darn important.
Quite a few people made that assumption. I think it was explicitly said a number of times. There was some musing about how people could reject the Holy Spirit and even a slight trembling for their salvation. There is a big difference between rejecting the Holy Spirit and rejecting Pentecostal dogma.
Agreed. There is definitely a difference between rejecting the Holy Spirit and Pentecostal Dogma. That being said I am trying to steer clear of rehashing the Holy Spirit conversation again. There are other ways to get at the thought of the Bible being an Idol without going down that path.
Not really. The end result of your argument is that there are times or even a level of spiritual maturity that people no longer have to worry about what the Bible says. If you're not being guided by the Bible you must be claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit (who must be telling you something the Bible doesn't) and you're now squarely back to Pentecostal dogma. There is no way to minimize the Bible without falling back on Pentecostalism.
Man I love ya but that is some reaching Zec. I'm not sure you read the post. No one is saying you don't have to worry about what the Bible says. Everyone here I hope know that any thing that contradicts the Bible is clearly not from God.
I love vast generalities like this. The only way I think you could say I have minimized the Bible is if you have made it an Idol. Let me lay this out again. The Bible is Gods word. God will never do anything to contradict it. If any Spirit or thing contradicts it, it is not of God. It is all truth. The question is, Is the Bible God? No. It only leads to God and helps us navigate Life. If you worship the Bible and make it your god and miss Elohim then you have missed it all. Can that happen? Yes, that is what I am using the story of Paul and the Pharisees for. A person can love God's word with all their heart, study it, talk about it, and share it with others but if they miss the God it is about they will split hell wide open. I think that sums it up.
Last edited:
You have a completely unformed thought here. You are worried about people making the Bible an idol even though you admit it's the Word of God (which is one of the ways Jesus is described), you admit it must be obeyed and never contradicted so how exactly would one make the Bible an idol? IF it's the Word of God, IF it's completely correct and IF it must be obeyed then what is there left that you can do more anyway. An idol is a false god that someone worships, since the Bible tells us how to worship God venerating past the "appropriate" point would be impossible. Obeying it would lead us to God. You can't obey the Bible and somehow miss God. You could misinterpret the Bible and hence make an idol out of your own foolishness. You could misuse the Bible and make an idol out of your own pride, but you can never obey the Bible too much, you can't take it too seriously.
And I think we're a little too hard on those Pharisees sometimes. God really challenged them when He came as Jesus. The Jews saw the terrible punishments God had rained down on their ancestors for idolatry and disobedience. They came back from Babylon determined to be obedient and they were very successful. There is no indication that they worshipped false gods anymore and they made obedience to the Torah and Tanakh the whole goal of their society. Now obviously things got a little out of whack but Christ's claims were radical and earth shattering and many of us, most likely myself included, would have rejected Him. I am convinced that God took Joseph early because he could not have accepted Jesus.
Interesting thought
As a pro nomian I love this!!!!
That is an opinion that doesn't exactly square with the history I have read.
I have wondered over the years about some things, like why Jesus told some they were not His sheep, and found some answers in reading about Herod the (not) great.
It was actually a violation of what YHWH authorized for a non Israelite to be king over YHWH's people. Herod was from an Edomite father and an Arab mother. He had no connection or love for the children of Israel......or even his own children.
True fear and obedience to YHWH made Israel indefeatable. Herod conquered Jerusalem by force, and had a bloody reign that the people kinda deserved for fearing man more then YHWH.
Yes, that is my easy chair opinion, and easily said from where I sit.....but I think if you read the accounts and the history in the good book you might see it that way too.
(I know too that it was prophesied to be so .....the Babylon head of gold, etc....I just try and learn from history)
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7598-herod-i