Bibliolatry

[colinlindsay]

Would fundamentalists recognise such a thing as biblioatry?
If it exists how would you define it and could you give examples.
I had someone come up to me after the service today and say I should have used one uncut loaf instead of 2 buns for the communion.
That's the biblical injunction.
Is this biblioatry where the principle is ignored for the exact form?

[e=mv^2]

Using leavened bread are you?!?!?

Biblioatry would be the worship of the book itself.

[colinlindsay]

Actually, it would help if I spelled it right.

<< worshipping the book > >

The nearest we could get is refusing to write notes in the margins, or putting the Bible on the floor. But what about processing the Bible and placing it (huge one!) on top of an eagle pedestal much higher than anyone in the congregation and hiding the preacher as his voice wafts down from the heights.

No, there's something to do with missing the principle as long as the form is observed. Have you never also met anyone who has no spiritual spark or humility or empathy but who loves commentaries and expositions?

If you haven't I certainly have. He never joined worship with the rest of us, but stood staring into his Bible. He was continally rustling the pages of his Macarthur Bible as he continually checked out what the preacher was saying.
Congregational life was a lot less important to him than propositional truth.
And lookingback it was all done to educate us about his new priorities.

[Lynn73]

Using leavened bread are you?!?!?

Yes, I was wondering about that. I have taken communion using leavened bread before but it probaby shouldn't be done that way.

Biblioatry would be the worship of the book itself.

That's what many accuse those of us who stand on the Bible as the final authority of being. But the Bible is the word of God, right? And God is infallible,right? Therefore it is the final authority. We worship the Author, not the Book and that includes believing what He reveals in His word.

[e=mv^2]

Using leavened bread are you?!?!?
That really was not a shot at him. It was just to show him that even if he had used a single loaf someone could still jab at him.

We worship the Author, not the Book and that includes believing what He reveals in His word.
So long as you consider God to be the author and not Moses etc...

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Bibliolatry is a real temptation for those of us who are sola scriptura. Some would elevate the Bible itself to a level of worship and ignore anything outside of scripture completely. Sola scriptura simply means that the Bible is the final authority that everything should be tested against. Those who would elevate scripture to the point of worship tend to forgtet that the very canon is tradition. What the OP describes is legalism and not bibliolatry.

[Lynn73]

Sola scriptura simply means that the Bible is the final authority that everything should be tested against.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

[xristos.anesti]

And where in the Bible says that Bible is the final Authority?

[twistedsketch]

And where in the Bible says that Bible is the final Authority?
Read my siggy.

I think that worship of the book itself would also encompass trying to find/crack a Biblical code. Or discounting all translations except for the one you like. That is a love for words on the page spun out of control.

[e=mv^2]

5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Do not add anything to scriptures so that you become proud - no man is greater than the other. What do you have that you did not receive? If you did not receive it then why do you glorify it?

[Lynn73]

And where in the Bible says that Bible is the final Authority?

That exact statement doesn't have to be there for the principle to be revealed as you read the Scriptures. Many Scriptures have been shared in these threads that attest to the Bible's authority, no one wants to accept them because it interferes with the sola ecclesia belief. The Bible doesn't specifically state there's a Trinity either but a reading of the Scripture shows that there is.

[xristos.anesti]

That exact statement doesn't have to be there for the principle to be revealed as you read the Scriptures. Many Scriptures have been shared in these threads that attest to the Bible's authority, no one wants to accept them because it interferes with the sola ecclesia belief. The Bible doesn't specifically state there's a Trinity either but a reading of the Scripture shows that there is.

Thank you very much.

So, Only Bible does not say Only Bible and using extra biblical principle to advance Only Bible principle is the principle of the matter.

Where in the Bible does is say which books belong to the Bible?

[Lynn73]

Nowhere in the Bible does it list the books to be put in the Bible. God use people indwelt by His Spirit who examined all the writings and evidence to decide.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theology/04canon.html

[xristos.anesti]

So again, you use non-scriptural principle to define scripture.

Where in the bible does it say that these men are to define scripture?

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Nowhere in the Bible does it list the books to be put in the Bible. God use people indwelt by His Spirit who examined all the writings and evidence to decide.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/theology/04canon.html
From that site:


7. The Council of Jamnia.

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D., the Jews were scattered. The remnants of the Jewish Sanhedrin, the supreme court of the Jews, moved to the ancient city of Jamnia.

In 90 A.D. a Council was held at Jamnia under the direction of Rabbi Akiba. One of the items of discussion was the recognition of the Jewish writings which were to be reckoned as authoritative.

The result of this council was that the books which make up our present Old Testament were recognized to be the Word of God. Those additional writings, such as the Apocrypha, were rejected.

We must point out that this council did not ESTABLISH the canonicity of these books, but rather RECOGNIZED the books as being God's Word.


This is misinformation. This council in fact removed the deuterocanon from the OT. The wonderful thing about citing this council is that this council was convened at least in part to prove the Christ was not the prophesied Messiah. I would trust nothing at all that came from this council.

More on the deuterocanonical books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

As much study as I have done I honestly see no reason to exclude books that were included in the first canons and have help up from 100's of years. These books were removed by remformers who disagreed with the doctrine that they supported. The council as justification was an afterthought. One of these reformers also wanted to toos out James as "a right strawy epistle" and also cut out Revelation when he made up his canon. No council has ever been convened within Christendom that has denied the deuterocanon.

[e=mv^2]

How is this discussion even taking place?

So, Only Bible does not say Only Bible and using extra biblical principle to advance Only Bible principle is the principle of the matter.

How can a fundamentalist make that statement? I can't imagine that you would be breakng the rules and entering into debate here if you were not a fundamentlaist. So tell me - how is it that you can profess that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that it is the only infallible authority on which to base doctrine - and still make that statement?


just wondering....

[xristos.anesti]

I apologise, you are right.

I do not belong here.

[e=mv^2]

I do not belong here.
You belong whereever you choose to be. It is the debate that causes concern - not your being here. Maybe you can find/start another thread that is not debate oriented?

[arunma]

This is misinformation. This council in fact removed the deuterocanon from the OT. The wonderful thing about citing this council is that this council was convened at least in part to prove the Christ was not the prophesied Messiah. I would trust nothing at all that came from this council.

Really? I didn't know that. Either way, I don't trust the council, because it was convened by non-Christians. Non-Christians have no authority to dictate theology to the church.

But anyway, the council's decisions are really of no consequence. Many Christian church fathers have given accurate lists of the canon. For example, Athanasius correctly stated the entire Old and New Testaments, except that he placed Esther in the apocrypha, and Baruch in the Old Testament. But it's noteworthy to point out that Athanasius recognized the apocrypha as the writings of heretics (which should be read for educational purposes only).

[xristos.anesti]

Really? I didn't know that. Either way, I don't trust the council, because it was convened by non-Christians. Non-Christians have no authority to dictate theology to the church.

But anyway, the council's decisions are really of no consequence. Many Christian church fathers have given accurate lists of the canon. For example, Athanasius correctly stated the entire Old and New Testaments, except that he placed Esther in the apocrypha, and Baruch in the Old Testament. But it's noteworthy to point out that Athanasius recognized the apocrypha as the writings of heretics (which should be read for educational purposes only).

The fact is that St. Athanasius does not consider deuterocanon as writing of the heretics. St. Athanasius uses greek Septuagint (as does the rest of the Orthodox Church) for the Old Testament.

Canon of the Scripture was not formulised (in the east-St. Athanasius being Bishop of Alexandria- which is in the east) until Trullan Council - long after St. Athanasius.

Also, what one father says is not what the Church says. It is what the whole Church says that makes what the Church says (catholic, catha-holos = according to the whole).

Deuterocanon is also present in the New Testament (James, Judas, Hebrews, II and III John, Revelation, Sheperd, Ignatius-Letters, Protogospel of James...), but some of the books entered unified canon, some did not. Nothing to do with inspiration, but with the fact that Church wanted specific (Apostolic) writings to be part of the canon, the will of the Church.

It is quite amazing to realise that fed-ex guy did not deliver the unified canon from the God via express mail...

Many years.

[mark kennedy]

There actually is a thing called biblolatry and it is a very small and very strange group of people that worship the book itself, as an idol. Now as far as worshiping the Word (incarnate Logos of God) that is simply a part of being a Christian. I think sometimes people get confused when we talk about the Word of God and the Bible as being the same thing.

Now having a preferance about what kind of communion bread should be used isn't biblolatry per se. I heard of a teen outreach that used pizza, the pastor was a little concerned but when he saw how it was used as a metaphor he figured it was ok. It's kind of like how people practice water baptism or whether or not you use instruments in worship services, its largely a matter of conviction.

A preacher once told me that during electrical storms his mother would leave an open Bible on the bed and tell him he must not touch it or the house might get struck by lightning. He said he grew up thinking the Bible was a lightning rod. Is that biblolatry or just a silly little superstition?

Just another little anecdote, my dad gave me a St. Christophers medalian for my first communion in 72, (I was raised Catholic). I lost it and a couple of years later my daughter found it after I had moved a dresser, picked it up, and gave it to my dad. Upon looking at it he handed it to me and we were both excited that it had turned up after all of that time. Now I could make a leap and think this means that the medalion is somehow sacred but I don't. It's actually just a nice little 30 year old keepsake from my dad. I intend to give it to my daughter when she goes off to college and hope it becomes a family heirloom but certainly wouldn't want someone burning incense to this little hunk of silver.

I worship the incarnate Word of God who loved me and gave Himself for me, not my leather bond study Bible.

Grace and peace,
Mark