What's the distinction between a good book and scripture?

[OldRegular]

Not silly just very absurd!

If indeed God decrees whatsoever comes to pass (as the Westminster Confession of Faith states) then what is the difference in your favorite Christian book and the bible?

Weren't both brought about by God's sovereign decree?

Don't you believe both are truth?

Don't you believe God was "in control" over the author while writing the words?

Besides the "title" what is the distinction between the two books?

Someone, perhaps you, did not like my characterization of your question as very silly. Therefore I will characterize it as absurd, a word that Archangel used that was apparently acceptable. Certainly comparing the inerrant, verbally inspired word of God with a book, even a good book, is absurd! Perhaps I can say very absurd!

Just checked Skandelon. It was you! Exercising your prerogative as a moderator I suppose. Must be nice! I am sort of an irregular on this forum but if I could sort of pick and choose what people said about me I might hang in here regularly.

 

[JesusFan]

My purpose in this question is to try to find Calvinist's distinction in what God decrees "plainly" (as in the latest John Piper book) and what he decrees "sacredly" (as in scripture). If God decrees all things in the manner they seem to argue then what is the uniqueness of HIS work and every other work? Are they all HIS works? Are some truths more true than others?

Big difference is that God inspired the original texts/manuscripts to be fully inerrant in ALL that was written, does NOT do that for any any author/writting!

 

[JesusFan]

Attack?!? I asked a question. I made no accusation, false assumptions, misrepresentations or arguments. I simply asked how you made a distinction between the two. I never claimed you didn't distinguish the two, in fact I assumed that you did. I just asked HOW considering what you believe about God's control over all things.

Maybe it's your outright hatred of me that is causing such a violent response to an honest question?

.
I understand that, but I'm asking you to define that. Explain how one book that you believe to teach truth is different from the scripture. What does it mean to say it is "God-breathed" if indeed both are just as equally brought about by God's sovereign decree and both are true?


You accuse me of not being "honest" because I (and presumably those reading this post) don't fully understand the distinction between the words "ordain" and "decree" within the complex and often redefined system of Calvinism? I bet we can find dozens of "Calvinists" who define these words differently than you have.

Plus, in your accusations you have still not really answered the question as to the distinction between the book that you believe teaches truth and the scripture. Presumably you would say that the book is merely ordained, while the scripture is decreed? So, what is the distinction besides the adjective used to describe them?

if i remember this correctly...

Haven't you post before that you do not see thefull inerrancy of the Bible, in that some portions wouldbe "less inspired than others?"

Almost as if the Bible becomes Word of God when yiu have an encounter with it, when the HS makes it real to you?

Almost like a barthian view of the Bible?

Could see how you would have a problem between the Bible and other "good books!"

 

[JesusFan]

How is that different from how he inspired scipture? What is the distinction?

no, I wasn't. I'm still asking for the distinction between how God brings about the writing of a book and scripture. Both, even by your own testimony are "of God" and I'm attempting to find out how you explain the way in which God brings these things about and on what you base the authority of scripture.

one is revelation knowledge that God decreed to pass on to us by ispiring the writers of the sacred texts...

that is why have the canon of scriptures, completed and closed...

IF we were to take your discussion to logical conclusions...

the canon is still open now, and we do have ongoing revelation from God...

Modern Apostles/prophets/ and book authors!
What would be our standard to reference all things by in that case?

 

[Skandelon]

Someone, perhaps you, did not like my characterization of your question as very silly. Therefore I will characterize it as absurd, a word that Archangel used that was apparently acceptable. Certainly comparing the inerrant, verbally inspired word of God with a book, even a good book, is absurd! Perhaps I can say very absurd!

Just checked Skandelon. It was you! Exercising your prerogative as a moderator I suppose. Must be nice! I am sort of an irregular on this forum but if I could sort of pick and choose what people said about me I might hang in here regularly.

It is called "Inflaming" when a post is meant ONLY to criticize or demean rather than engage a discussion or address the topic. Your post was CLEARLY meant only to demean.

As stated, this conversation and point of discussion is a topic among many scholars thus this reply only serves to reflect your own lack of understanding concerning the topic at hand.

In a world where God is completely sovereign, in the manner argued by some deterministic types, how does one distinguish between truth revealed in scripture and truth revealed elsewhere?

That question is fair, reasoned and honest. To dismiss it as 'silly' is insulting, demeaning and immature. Then, to be corrected and shown that this topic is a valid issue discussed by scholars, and yet still respond by continuing to call it 'silly' and 'absurd' is more of a reflection of your own character, intelligence, and/or objectivity.

 

[Skandelon]

Big difference is that God inspired the original texts/manuscripts to be fully inerrant in ALL that was written, does NOT do that for any any author/writting!

So, where does the truth that you write come from? Does it come from you or God?

If you, then where did you get it?
If God, then why is the truth God gave you different from the truth God gave Paul while writing to Rome?
What distinguishes that 'truth' from this 'truth?' Isn't God as sovereign over the truth you write as he was over the truth Paul wrote? Or is God MORE sovereign over some truth that is written than He is over other truth that is written?

 

[OldRegular]

It is called "Inflaming" when a post is meant ONLY to criticize or demean rather than engage a discussion or address the topic. Your post was CLEARLY meant only to demean.

So 'silly' is more inflammatory than absurd? I would never have guessed, particularly since a thesaurus gives essentially the same synonyms for silly and absurd!:thumbs:!

As stated, this conversation and point of discussion is a topic among many scholars thus this reply only serves to reflect your own lack of understanding concerning the topic at hand.

Well that may be true but it seems to me that the purpose of many "scholars" is simply to demean the Bible.

In a world where God is completely sovereign, in the manner argued by some deterministic types, how does one distinguish between truth revealed in scripture and truth revealed elsewhere?

That question is fair, reasoned and honest. To dismiss it as 'silly' is insulting, demeaning and immature. Then, to be corrected and shown that this topic is a valid issue discussed by scholars, and yet still respond by continuing to call it 'silly' and 'absurd' is more of a reflection of your own character, intelligence, and/or objectivity.

I believe in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I also believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, I believe Scripture in its original autographs is inerrant. In my opinion any question that implies that any work of man is comparable to the inerrant Scripture, or any work of God, is absurd [since that word is acceptable criticism].

In an aside, Is it possible that I can edit your personal attack on my

character, intelligence, and/or objectivity.

My initial remarks about your question being silly was not a personal attack on you Mr. Skandelon, it was a comment on your question. You are not only a moderator on this Christian Forum but indicate that you are a Christian Minister. When you stoop to personal attacks on a participant in this Forum you demean both offices.

Now if you want to delete my remarks you are free to do so but you further demean your position!

 

[marke]

The difference between a good book and scripture is that one is the revelation of God of Himself and His plans and the other is not.

A "good book" may contain elements of the truths found in scripture, but it is not scripture.

The most important result of this distinction is that Scripture, as the revelation of God, is the final measure and authority for truth.

Everything else that is written, both good and bad, must be examined against the measuring rod (canon) of scripture.

Concerning the final revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ:

Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (2) in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.... (3)...He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature..." (emphasis mine: not yelling)

John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him...." (emphasis mine: not yelling)

Both of these passages speak of the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Both are a "completed action in the past".

If a person believes there is a need for further revelation from God, then a person must believe that Jesus didn't do a good enough job of speaking for the Father, or explaining the Father to us.

peace to youraying:

I like this. I'm not sure, however, of your views of the preservation of God's written word, if that is a matter relevent to this post.

 

[preacher4truth]

So 'silly' is more inflammatory than absurd? I would never have guessed, particularly since a thesaurus gives essentially the same synonyms for silly and absurd!:thumbs:!



Well that may be true but it seems to me that the purpose of many "scholars" is simply to demean the Bible.



I believe in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I also believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, I believe Scripture in its original autographs is inerrant. In my opinion any question that implies that any work of man is comparable to the inerrant Scripture, or any work of God, is absurd [since that word is acceptable criticism].

In an aside, Is it possible that I can edit your personal attack on my



My initial remarks about your question being silly was not a personal attack on you Mr. Skandelon, it was a comment on your question. You are not only a moderator on this Christian Forum but indicate that you are a Christian Minister. When you stoop to personal attacks on a participant in this Forum you demean both offices.

Now if you want to delete my remarks you are free to do so but you further demean your position!

I completely agree. The naming one immature and calling into question character here is not necessary. Especially from a mod.

 

[preacher4truth]

It is called "Inflaming" when a post is meant ONLY to criticize or demean rather than engage a discussion or address the topic. Your post was CLEARLY meant only to demean.

As stated, this conversation and point of discussion is a topic among many scholars thus this reply only serves to reflect your own lack of understanding concerning the topic at hand.

In a world where God is completely sovereign, in the manner argued by some deterministic types, how does one distinguish between truth revealed in scripture and truth revealed elsewhere?

That question is fair, reasoned and honest. To dismiss it as 'silly' is insulting, demeaning and immature. Then, to be corrected and shown that this topic is a valid issue discussed by scholars, and yet still respond by continuing to call it 'silly' and 'absurd' is more of a reflection of your own character, intelligence, and/or objectivity.

No, it's not wrong when it's ONLY meant to do this. It's wrong when it INCLUDES it in addition to other things as well.

TOTALLY unnecessary.

 

[JesusFan]

So, where does the truth that you write come from? Does it come from you or God?

Jesus is both God/man, same fashion, the Word written down has both God/man in its creation
God superintended over what was written so that it EXACTLY was written as God intended it to be, fully inerrant/infallible/w/o any errors!

If you, then where did you get it?

If God, then why is the truth God gave you different from the truth God gave Paul while writing to Rome?

God gives us Illumination, but He inspired the revealed Word!

What distinguishes that 'truth' from this 'truth?' Isn't God as sovereign over the truth you write as he was over the truth Paul wrote? Or is God MORE sovereign over some truth that is written than He is over other truth that is written?[/QUOTE]

God did not directly determine ANY writting other than the Bible!
Christian authors will have parts of truth in their books, NONE have all truth in their books!

 

[OldRegular]

The Westminster Confession of Faith states in Chapter III

Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

I had not read this recently Skandelon, and I really don't hang on to "Confessions" though I think good ones are essential. However, on reading the above I am even more convinced that this thread is not for the purpose of encouraging a reasoned discussion. Therefore, I think to characterize it as absurd is appropriate. I must also extend my appreciation to Archangel for calling the word Absurd to my attention!

 

[Skandelon]

So 'silly' is more inflammatory than absurd? I would never have guessed, particularly since a thesaurus gives essentially the same synonyms for silly and absurd!:thumbs:!

At least AA earlier attempted a response thus showing some willingness to engage the discussion rather than merely inflame.

Well that may be true but it seems to me that the purpose of many "scholars" is simply to demean the Bible.

No one here is attempting to demean the bible, in fact my goal is quite the opposite. I believe God's unique, active and sovereign work to bring about scripture IS PROOF that He doesn't sovereignly work to bring about all things in the same manner. Calvinists have pointed to God's work to inspire scriptures as some kind of proof that He is sovereign over all things in like manner, but that undermines the uniqueness of His working. My attempt is to show that uniqueness by contrasting the way in which scripture came to pass with the way in which other true writings have come to pass. In doing so I HIGHLIGHT and EMPHASIZE the influence, supernatural power, and sovereign work of God in breathing the truth of scripture. Calvinists, on the other hand, appear to believe that God brings all things to pass in like manner, so what exactly makes the scripture unique? Can you answer that or not? If not, fine, but there is no need to inflame.

I believe in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace. I also believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. Therefore, I believe Scripture in its original autographs is inerrant.

Good, but that has nothing to do with what is being asked here.

In my opinion any question that implies that any work of man is comparable to the inerrant Scripture

Yet, you have once again revealed that you have not understood my argument, because I AM THE ONE denying that they are comparable by asking you, one who thinks God sovereignly brings ALL THINGS TO PASS, how they are not comparable.

My initial remarks about your question being silly was not a personal attack on you Mr. Skandelon

It was inflammatory...meant only to demean. It was unnecessary and it (THE COMMENTS) reflect poorly on you.

With regard to my moderation, I didn't even give you any infractions. I simply edit your inflammatory words. If you don't want to engage an honest, scholarly, reasoned argument, then don't. But just to go around calling it 'silly' is uncalled for and it reflects poorly on you.

 

[Skandelon]

God did not directly determine ANY writting other than the Bible!
Christian authors will have parts of truth in their books, NONE have all truth in their books!

Ok, then answer the question. Where did the truth you write come from? What about John Bunyan's pilgrims progress? It was clearly a unique and creative allegory which most Calvinists would agree expresses truth, right?

So, where did that come from? Did John originate that idea himself or did God give it to him? Look at the two possible answers:

1) If from John, how does that view reconcile with the Cals view of sovereignty and their view of how God is NEVER informed by man?

2) If from God, how is that different from how God gave truth to the apostles while writing scripture?

 

[OldRegular]

Yet, you have once again revealed that you have not understood my argument, because I AM THE ONE denying that they are comparable by asking you, one who thinks God sovereignly brings ALL THINGS TO PASS, how they are not comparable.

I don't believe that I said:

God sovereignly brings ALL THINGS TO PASS

I said:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I believe in the Doctrine of Sovereign Grace.

I believe there is a difference!

 

[The Archangel]

Ok, then answer the question. Where did the truth you write come from? What about John Bunyan's pilgrims progress? It was clearly a unique and creative allegory which most Calvinists would agree expresses truth, right?

So, where did that come from? Did John originate that idea himself or did God give it to him? Look at the two possible answers:

1) If from John, how does that view reconcile with the Cals view of sovereignty and their view of how God is NEVER informed by man?

2) If from God, how is that different from how God gave truth to the apostles while writing scripture?

OH GOOD GRIEF!

Look, your entire idea of things has been misshapen by an incomplete reading of the Westminster Confession. You want the confession to say "God ordains all things that come to pass." You want to label those who hold to Westminster, or some variation thereof like Second London, as "Determinists" believing that God causes man's nature to be fallen or that God causes man to sin in order that His greater purposes be accomplished.

WESTMINSTER DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS!

Westminster (and 2nd London) both state the following:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
​

So, here we have the statement "God...ordain whatsoever comes to pass." But, we also have the following exceptions:

1. God is not the author of sin
2. God does over-rule the will of the creature
3. The liberty of second causes is not taken away

To miss the exceptions listed in the Confession is to knowingly misrepresent our position. Furthermore, to insist that we believe that "God ordains whatever comes to pass" without reading or taking into account the exceptions is to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent our position. We ARE NOT determinists. We are compatabilists. We are compatibilists in the way we (and Westminster, and 2nd London) define compatibilism, not the way you wrongly define it.

Now, on to the question.

There is a world of difference between the Bible and Pilgrim's Progress.

1. The Bible is, itself, inspired. This means, as you know, it is "God-Breathed." This means what the Bible says, God says; what God says, the Bible says.

No other book is given this status.

Bunyan's book is an excellent book, but it is subject to the truth of Scripture. I have read other excellent books by very gifted and talented authors--but those books and the "truths" contained therein are always subject to the truth contained in Scripture, not vice-versa.

2. Pilgrim's Progress, as you've stated, is indeed an allegory of the Christian life. Now, either you are completely and totally daft (which I seriously doubt) or you are baiting us with your feigned ignorance (which is much more likely). Either way, I am fairly certain you know the following:

Pilgrim's Progress, being an allegory, is drawn from Scripture. The "truth" contained in Bunyan's work is not Bunyan's it is God's because Bunyan basically re-tells one aspect of the story-line of Scripture in the language of his day. Yet, Pilgrim's Progress, because it is not "inspired" scripture is subject to Scripture and if an error is found in Pilgrim's Progress it is to be discarded (note: not discounted) because Pilgrim's Progress is not Scripture.

Specifically, here are the answers to the following:

Ok, then answer the question. Where did the truth you write come from? What about John Bunyan's pilgrims progress? It was clearly a unique and creative allegory which most Calvinists would agree expresses truth, right?

It is God's "truth." It is Bunyan's expression of God's truth. It is unique in literature. The story is not unique for the story is the story of Scripture. The truth expressed in Pilgrim's Progress is not inspired and it is not original; it is derivative. It is derived from God's word.

So, where did that come from? Did John originate that idea himself or did God give it to him? Look at the two possible answers:

1) If from John, how does that view reconcile with the Cals view of sovereignty and their view of how God is NEVER informed by man?

2) If from God, how is that different from how God gave truth to the apostles while writing scripture?

The answer is neither.

#1 is flawed because it assumes that Pilgrim's Progress is a work in and of its author and written in vacuum. Bunyan, as you know, was indeed a Baptist Pastor and knew the Bible. As mentioned earlier, Bunyan allegorizes the Bible. To make an allegory, as you yourself affirm Pilgrim's Progress is, is by definition to say that the work is built on something else rather than an "original" composition.

#2 is flawed because God is not giving the truth to Bunyan in the same way He gave truth to the apostles. God gave the Apostles (and the Old Testament prophets, etc.) Scripture though the revelation of the Holy Spirit. They were charges with writing the words of God, though they each did it in their own unique style (hence, verbal-plenary inspiration).

Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a work derivative of the writings of the Apostles (or, better, the biblical authors). The writings of the Apostles are original works.

The answer, which you seem to discount completely, is this: Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress under the influence of the Bible. As such, his derivative work stands on a completely different tier--a lower tier--and is subject to the truth contained in the original work.

God neither inspired Bunyan's work or was informed by it. Bunyan was "inspired" (not in the sense of "God-Breathed") to write Pilgrim's Progress precisely because he was informed by God though the pages of Holy Scripture.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank You, Thank You Thank You Brother Archangel for once again stepping up to the plate & clarifying to everyone that we who hold to Doctrines Of Grace theology are not determinists:thumbs:



God is not the author of sin
God does over-rule the will of the creature
The liberty of second causes is not taken away

To miss the exceptions listed in the Confession is to knowingly misrepresent our position. Furthermore, to insist that we believe that "God ordains whatever comes to pass" without reading or taking into account the exceptions is to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent our position. We ARE NOT determinists. We are compatabilists. We are compatibilists in the way we (and Westminster, and 2nd London) define compatibilism, not the way you wrongly define it.

 

[OldRegular]

OH GOOD GRIEF!

Look, your entire idea of things has been misshapen by an incomplete reading of the Westminster Confession. You want the confession to say "God ordains all things that come to pass." You want to label those who hold to Westminster, or some variation thereof like Second London, as "Determinists" believing that God causes man's nature to be fallen or that God causes man to sin in order that His greater purposes be accomplished.

WESTMINSTER DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT SAYS!

Westminster (and 2nd London) both state the following:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
​

So, here we have the statement "God...ordain whatsoever comes to pass." But, we also have the following exceptions:

1. God is not the author of sin
2. God does over-rule the will of the creature
3. The liberty of second causes is not taken away

To miss the exceptions listed in the Confession is to knowingly misrepresent our position. Furthermore, to insist that we believe that "God ordains whatever comes to pass" without reading or taking into account the exceptions is to knowingly and intentionally misrepresent our position. We ARE NOT determinists. We are compatabilists. We are compatibilists in the way we (and Westminster, and 2nd London) define compatibilism, not the way you wrongly define it.

The Archangel

Archangel

I firmly believe in the Sovereignty of God else He would not be God. Over a number of years after God's work of Grace in my life I came to firmly believe in the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of His elect. Furthermore, I believe that God works in the lives of His people [and possibly others] in ways we do not necessarily understand to accomplish His purpose.

That being said I have always had difficulty with the way many people have characterized the Sovereignty of God. It is if they are attempting to make Him a puppet master and us the puppets.

When I posted the article Of God's Eternal Decree from the Westminster Confession in response to Skandelon I had underlined the exceptions [at least what I considered exceptions] but I did not make the effort to present them as you have. I appreciate very much your remarks regarding that particular article. They have reinforced my understanding of Of God's Eternal Decree.

 

[Aaron]

If indeed God decrees whatsoever comes to pass (as the Westminster Confession of Faith states) then what is the difference in your favorite Christian book and the bible?

Weren't both brought about by God's sovereign decree?

Don't you believe both are truth?

Don't you believe God was "in control" over the author while writing the words?

Besides the "title" what is the distinction between the two books?

That's like asking what is the distinction between wheat and manna? God is the source of both, but men can only cultivate one, the other is directly from Heaven.

 

[Aaron]

You aren't being seduced by the Documentary Hypothesis, are you?