Biblical fundamentalism: Is it idolatry, bibliolatry?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
What then is the true "religion"? To help widows and orphans in their distress, and remain undefiled by the world.

One might further their rejoicing in Jesus Christ, knowing that religion is fulfilled in him. After all whose fast will the creator accept?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ScienceDada
I think you might have all that back-wards.
People did not read or have access to books, in general, back in early times.
They would have listened to people reading from their Christian writers when they went to church.

They also listened to the Apostles speak, empowered by the Holy Spirit. And individuals like Polycarp wrote from what they heard the Apostles teach. While the scriptures are definitely part of the Tradition of the Church, it is by no means all-inclusive.

What do you think Jesus was doing, reading in the synagogues?

He was identifying that the scriptures testified to him. He also healed in the synagogues, and defied hypocrites according to the Spirit and not the Law and the Prophets.

Now that most people can read and buy a Bible, we can do more of that sort of thing.

That is great. They could throughout the Byzantine empire as well; this is not a new concept that was ushered in with Gutenberg and movable type.

You need to remember that what allowed the Reformation to take place was the invention of printing. So it may be coincidental that many people were reading the Bible, and that it corresponds with new churches coming up.

This was true in the West, not in the East. There was no reformation in the Church of the East... it is only a reaction against Roman Catholicism and their false/legalistic claims and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ScienceDada

Apostolic Tradition that was the basis for Christianity and the Church, not the scriptures alone.

I'm not as learned as you are sir, but on this point I have to disagree. True, the apostles w charged to spread the "Word" of truth, but their sole purpose was to share the Truth as it was revealed by Jesus Christ.

Forgive me if what I have written has seemed otherwise. What you write here is true, and I do not mean in any way to say or even imply otherwise.

Remember, sometimes "tradition" changed by revelation of God... I myself do not put nearly as much trust in human tradition as the Words of Jesus Christ because tradition can be perverted, the Pharisees held onto their tradition, as if that was what saved them.

When you read the Gospel, it becomes quite clear that Christ does not attack the Pharisees for keeping the law. What He does is attack their selective keeping of the law, or overriding the law with their own customs, and using it to condemn others who were not "as holy" as they. He attacks their outward pretending, as evidenced in stating that while they gave tithe of their mint/dill/cumin, but ignored the weightier parts of the law. And what He attacked was their justification of this behavior as holy.

John the Baptist and the other Essenes had traditions as well, and Christ does not attack those, even when John's disciples were asking about fasting, because their inquiries were in truth and out of pride. Christ himself kept the festivals of Purim and Chaunkah, which were not even given in the Law, and he used these to point to himself. So the blanket indictment of "tradition" is a misplaced one, if for no other reason than it invalidates the very scriptures it claims to be based on.

My point in creating this forum thread was this: to claim to hold to the scriptures alone is a smokescreen, and more often than not leads to idolatry (in the form of bibliolatry). Without the system of checks-and-balances of those called by God to live a Holy life, it is almost certain that men will go astray, because they will take their Bible as an idol, and make God's word into man's word by interpreting it as they see fit. This is lawless behavior---violating the Gospel and the Apostles, and all of the Law and the Prophets. It is not Christian.

For example, what is Protestant confession but a "lone prayer into one's pillow at 3am" as if this justifies oneself? But what does the scripture say? Confess your sins to one another and if you confess your sins, He is faithful and just to forgive you. Yet, how many Protestants have I known that do not do confess all their sins to one another? They may confess some, but others remain. Thus hidden inside is all sort of uncleanliness. To cover the sins which lurk in the deep, dark places, they turn to legalism and hypocrisy, pointing to other's visible sins so as to take the focus off their own, or reasoning that the Holy Sacrament of Confession is a "tradition of man" so as to get themselves off the hook. Protestants do many such things while claiming to be "scriptural."

The true "rock" of the Christian church is the death of Jesus Christ, His resurrection, and His Word. I'm a firm believer that not a single person has ever been saved by "tradition", but only by the shed blood of our savior Jesus Christ.

I couldn't have said this better myself. Thank you!

reply to post by ScienceDada

They also listened to the Apostles speak, empowered by the Holy Spirit. And individuals like Polycarp wrote from what they heard the Apostles teach. While the scriptures are definitely part of the Tradition of the Church, it is by no means all-inclusive.

Listening to the Apostles would have been fine, while they were alive. A of the New Testament is made from what they wrote, and then was read in the church. We have those words today because copies were made and distributed to churches other than who they were originally written to.

He was identifying that the scriptures testified to him. He also healed in the synagogues, and defied hypocrites according to the Spirit and not the Law and the Prophets.

I was just trying to point to Jesus as an example of how it was a well established tradition, at that time, of reading scripture to the congregation.

That is great. They could throughout the Byzantine empire as well; this is not a new concept that was ushered in with Gutenberg and movable type.

I am not sure what you are talking about, what they did in Byzantium.
1439 is when movable type printing was invented. One hundred years later there was new churches that sprung up as a result of people being able to read the Bible for themselves.

This was true in the West, not in the East. There was no reformation in the Church of the East... it is only a reaction against Roman Catholicism and their false/legalistic claims and hypocrisy.

They went too far as in trying to wring out as much money as possible from the people and claiming all kinds of power to themselves in order to do that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ScienceDada
I was just trying to point to Jesus as an example of how it was a well established tradition, at that time, of reading scripture to the congregation.

That is great. They could throughout the Byzantine empire as well; this is not a new concept that was ushered in with Gutenberg and movable type.

I am not sure what you are talking about, what they did in Byzantium.
1439 is when movable type printing was invented. One hundred years later there was new churches that sprung up as a result of people being able to read the Bible for themselves.

It was commonplace to have scriptures for those who lived in Byzantium. In fact, the Byzantine texts of the scriptures are frequently used by KJV-only proponents as an argument for the received text as being "the true" Bible translation in English. So, in the East, people were not discouraged to read the scriptures for themselves; actually, quite the opposite.

It was in Europe that the Roman Catholic Church discouraged scripture reading and that people were discouraged to read the scriptures for themselves (apparently). This was not true in Byzantium... it was commonplace. So, the reformation happened in Europe, but did not happen in the Eastern Church because it was a problem with the heretical Roman Church, not the Eastern Church. That was my point. The invention of movable type did not "free" the Church, it only allowed the Protestants to rebel against the corrupt Roman Church, which had already been excommunicated from the East 400 years earlier because of their excesses in trying to assert control over the Eastern Churches.

This was true in the West, not in the East. There was no reformation in the Church of the East... it is only a reaction against Roman Catholicism and their false/legalistic claims and hypocrisy.

They went too far as in trying to wring out as much money as possible from the people and claiming all kinds of power to themselves in order to do that.

Yes. This is called simony, and it is despicable.

reply to post by ScienceDada

it only allowed the Protestants to rebel against the corrupt Roman Church, which had already been excommunicated from the East 400 years earlier because of their excesses in trying to assert control over the Eastern Churches.

For some reason that makes me laugh.
Good luck with all that, but I am afraid the Romans are trying to make the Orthodox somehow subservient to them.
Nice to see your viewpoint on that.
I hope they hold their own against that force that seems to be slipping into a new kind of weirdness about aliens and other craziness.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by ScienceDada

 

it only allowed the Protestants to rebel against the corrupt Roman Church, which had already been excommunicated from the East 400 years earlier because of their excesses in trying to assert control over the Eastern Churches.

For some reason that makes me laugh.
Good luck with all that, but I am afraid the Romans are trying to make the Orthodox somehow subservient to them.
Nice to see your viewpoint on that.
I hope they hold their own against that force that seems to be slipping into a new kind of weirdness about aliens and other craziness.

Oh, yeah. I won't even go there because I get uppity. There are many in the Orthodox hierarchy that are playing footsie with Rome. But ultimately the faithful will not allow it. The last time it was attempted was at the Council of Florence (1453), and let's just say the Orthodox faithful strongly rejected it. So, if it happens again, the faithful will declare the leadership to be unworthy, and they will be removed for their heresy.

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by drevill
No it is you that is reading something to fit purpose
the sun was out?
what does this mean????? well you would need the context wouldn't you?

So, then, who defines the context? Because here we have an example of two people (you and I) who sincerely interpret the scripture differently, eh?

I wonder how many people along the different developments of bibles felt that way.