Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 146

Thread: Calvin's 66 book Canon

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Posts
    607
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Were not the books cannonized because the writers were apostolic writers and leaders of the church? Is this the understanding of all how these books were selected?
    By F. F. Bruce

    The corpus Paulinum, or collection of Paul's writings, was brought together about the same time as the collecting of the fourfold Gospel. As the Gospel collection was designated by the Greek word Euangelion, so the Pauline collection was designated by the one word Apostolos, each letter being distinguished as 'To the Romans', 'First to the Corinthians', and so on. Before long, the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was bound up with the Pauline writings. Acts, as a matter of convenience, came to be bound up with the 'General Epistles' (those of Peter, James, John and Jude).

    The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas', the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews', were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority. Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books.

    For various reasons it was necessary for the Church to know exactly what books were divinely authoritative. The Gospels, recording 'all that Jesus began both to do and to teach', could not be regarded as one whit lower in authority than the Old Testament books. And the teaching of the apostles in the Acts and Epistles was regarded as vested with His authority. It was natural, then, to accord to the apostolic writings of the new covenant the same degree of homage as was already paid to the prophetic writings of the old. Thus Justin Martyr, about AD 150, classes the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' along with the writings of the prophets, saving that both were read in meetings of Christians (Apol i. 67). For the Church did not, in spite of the breach with Judaism, repudiate the authority of the Old Testament; but, following the example of Christ and His apostles, received it as the Word of God. Indeed, so much did they make the Septuagint their own that, although it was originally a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for Greek-speaking Jews before the time of Christ, the Jews left the Septuagint to the Christians, and a fresh Greek version of the Old Testament was made for Greek speaking Jews.

    It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his.
    Other circumstances which demanded clear definition of those books which possessed divine authority were the necessity of deciding which books should be read in church services (though certain books might be suitable for this purpose which could not be used to settle doctrinal questions), and the necessity of knowing which books might and might not be handed over on demand to the imperial police in times of persecution without incurring the guilt of sacrilege.

    One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa -- at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 -- but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.

  2. #42
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Jmpgipson, the early church you are referring to was composed of apostate free willers. There is absolutely no evidence that they believed and taught salvation by free and sovereign grace. In fact, there is a boat load of evidence that points in the exact opposite direction. If you are going to use the "early church" to bolster your claims, then at least show me that they believed the Gospel that you and I both confess.

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    This thread isn't about what is in or what is not in Scripture. This is about how we came to determine our canon. Bob summed it up quite neatly.

    There are four methods here:

    1. Christocentric
    This is the method that Luther proposed. He was a bit inconsistent with his method. We are simply taking his method and running with it.

    2. Self-authentication of the Holy Spirit
    This was John Calvin's method which was outlined at the beginning of this thread.

    3. Dispensational Method
    This is Harald's method. He has been very consistent in defending this. He believes James was written to the Jews and we have to understand it as a Jewish person. He is being consistent in that he thinks James is consistent with the "jewish" gospel.

    4. Unanimous Consent / Historical Consent
    This is pretty much everybody else's method (Such as Joe's and Jmpgipson's above). They are basing the canon on the consent of others. Harald is also appealing to this method as well for reinforcement surprisingly.


    Brandan
    Let me clarify one pertinent issue with #4. THis by no means implies that this method says the church gave us the bounded book of 66. They did not decide, but the faithfull were led by the Holy Spirit to finally close the issue once and for all. Acceptance of the 27 books does not guarantee an orthodox understanding of the writ. THis is obvious considering some groups who consent to the 27 NT scriptures are apostate. BUt they do agree on the 27 books. And this is due to the influence of the Holy Spirit and not just a mere trivial coincidence. Now this does not put one back under the umbrella of Rome, it only goes to show the power of Gods providence to care and retain His word in spite of what tey believe.

    GOd never gave individuals a mixed up bag of scriptures like a puzzle that are to be pieced together and randomly looked at. We are given the whole book of 66 inspired writings. And when we study it, the Holy Spirit then confirms to us what has already been given from the beginning. We look at whole books as divinely inspired, not only bits and pieces of them.


    Brandan will argue that predestination or Sovereign grace was not taught by the early church. This has absolutely nothing to do with compiling a bounded book of 66. For if it did, one would HAVE to argue that Pauls letters would not be in. So this method is extreemely weak. JEws argued about scripture, but yet consented on what books they would argue from . Articles of faith do not determine authority to decide the canon. If this is the case, then Paul would have anathamised James!!!!!! WHy will noone comment on this? If PaUL USED "HIS" GOSPEL AS THE BAR, THE RULE, THE "KANON", he had plenty of time to anathemise peter and james. Again this unanimous consent is only witness to the power of God to preserve His word and making it recognizable even to the apostates.


    WHy would you run with a method, that has grave consequences to it? WHy make this exclusive to all the rest? Philemon would have to be thrown out for sure then.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Posts
    607
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Jmpgipson, the early church you are referring to was composed of apostate free willers. There is absolutely no evidence that they believed and taught salvation by free and sovereign grace. In fact, there is a boat load of evidence that points in the exact opposite direction. If you are going to use the "early church" to bolster your claims, then at least show me that they believed the Gospel that you and I both confess.

    Brandan
    Brandan, One thing I have noticed about the early church writers is the lack of material on anything except false doctrine they were writing against. For example, I can't find anything on the free willers before Augustine. Please refer me to writings before this if you have them. I will read even a boat load if I have to.

    JG

  5. #45
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    There is a thread on this forum that has dealt with this before John. Bob and I have quoted many of the early church "fathers" (as determined by the Reformers) that outlines that they believed and taught the false gospel of auto-salvation. I'll find it for you and point you to it.
    This is my signature.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Thank you brother Bob. I have been greatly helped by your teachings and your research on this vital issue, and have come into full agreement on how the canon should be determined.

    I believe our position on this topic is more hated than any other position of ours by those influenced and controlled by churchianity. Many protestants can and will tolerate differing positions on justification, baptism, and other ecclesiastical practices. But they won't tolerate any deviation from their understanding of canonization. The notion of questioning the canon is considered as sacrilegious, and most will not consider it because of the ramifications that it would bring. In other words, men are lacking courage to seek the truth even if it opposes all of what history, tradition, and their respected men believe and teach.

    Look at how most people who answered their questions in their profiles, and you will notice that many of those who believe James is canonical answered that 1) It should be canonical because it testifies of Christ and His work or 2) Because it's been accepted as truth throughout history.

    The problem with the first answer is it does not testify of Christ and His work. Hopefully in time, these people who answered accordingly will be brought to see that they are indeed holding to tradition because James clearly does not speak of Christ and His atoning work (the Gospel).

    Those that answered that James is canonical due to it being held in high esteem throughout the centuries are really taking the roman catholic position. They need a good smack upside the head so that they can see their error. Folks, be brave and examine the Scriptures for yourself instead of depending on someone else to determine canonicity for you! If you are a Gospel believer, remember that you are a PRIEST in God's Kingdom, and you have the authority to judge what is truthful by the Gospel which was handed to you through the Apostles.

    Personally, if men want to include James in their canon, that is fine by me. I won't object too loudly. However, they better not include it as proof for their arguments before me, because I won't consider it.
    As you know i think you are misrepresenting Calvins position. First of all to understand the authenticty of the scriptures and the 66 included in the cannon we must appeal to the Soveriegnty of God. If God is either absolutely soveriegn or He is not. The truth is that these NT. 27, we always accepted as part of the cannon from the early church. The word of God is a spoken word. It is the absolute rule of life. God the Holy Spirit moved in men to mark the books from the time of the early church. King James appointed scholars to attest to what was already aggreed to. God put His stamp on the end of the cannon in Revelation. He means what He says. Questioning whether the cannon has every yot and tittle as the complete 66 is questioning the God who has spoken it into time. If you question its authenticity you question the power of God, which was in Christ in the ressurrection and is in the Word left to us as the means of the Holy Spirits regenerating power!

  7. #47
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by mybigGod
    As you know i think you are misrepresenting Calvins position.
    No, I don't know. Go back and read the first post of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    First of all to understand the authenticty of the scriptures and the 66 included in the cannon we must appeal to the Soveriegnty of God.
    We are. We're appealing to the Gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    If God is either absolutely soveriegn or He is not.
    I believe He is absolutely sovereign.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    The truth is that these NT. 27, we always accepted as part of the cannon from the early church.
    So, freewillism has always abounded since the Apostles also. Does that make it right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    The word of God is a spoken word. It is the absolute rule of life.
    No argument from me here.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    God the Holy Spirit moved in men to mark the books from the time of the early church.
    How do you know?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    King James appointed scholars to attest to what was already aggreed to.
    SO?????

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    God put His stamp on the end of the cannon in Revelation.
    The end of Revelation is not referring to the Canon. Book Chapter Verse?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    Questioning whether the cannon has every yot and tittle as the complete 66 is questioning the God who has spoken it into time.
    This would be true if everyything you said was true up to this point. Unfortunately, it's just a bunch of subjective assumptions you've put forth.
    This is my signature.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    No, I don't know. Go back and read the first post of this thread.
    I dissagree with how the Holy Spirit was presented as seperated from the Trinitarian counsel.
    We are. We're appealing to the Gospel
    The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. The power of God is in the word of God.The seed of the word is planted in the heart and takes root. The receiving of that word is dependent apoun accepting its authenticity.
    I believe He is absolutely sovereign.
    But you do not believe that james is part of the cannon so obviously He made a mistake. If james is not part of the cannon which is His spoken word, that is His revelation of Himself then who is to decide what is revealed ? How are you going to trust any thing that He has revealed about Himself? Has He decreed that the cannon is complete with James or not?
    So, freewillism has always abounded since the Apostles also. Does that make it right?
    Men were directed in every movement of the incorporation of the cannon. Their thoughts were known by God in eternity andthey were moved to think them before they thought them.Yet they did these things that they desired to do.
    No argument from me here.
    Except James?

    The end of Revelation is not referring to the Canon. Book Chapter Verse?
    So you are saying that the whole does not have the approval that the book does. The last verse is the breathe of God as the whole is. I guess by your logic God made a distinction about the authenticity of His revelation in that revealed warning.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    So you are saying that the whole does not have the approval that the book does. The last verse is the breathe of God as the whole is. I guess by your logic God made a distinction about the authenticity of His revelation in that revealed warning.
    Let's start by the assumption that you are right and God put James in the canon... Now, how can we possibly know that objectively? How can you deal with James real problematic texts? Do you really believe that all that is in the book of James was written by the "half brother of Jesus"? What about interpolation? Do you believe there is no interpolation in the book of James?

    You see, I don't know if you read the thread Multi Level Canon, but we discuss this entirely in there. I will talk with the other moderators and decide if we should pose as a condition for one to post in this thread about the canonicity of the book of James that he/she would read the Multi Level Canon thread first. Otherwise we will be ringing the same bells of argumentation without getting anywhere. Every new guy/girl that shows up in this forum and reads anything about James in this thread will immediately make assumptions that this issue is a novel issue and that we are a bunch of novices seeking novelties here...

    I don't expect you to answer the questions I asked above. They are just an appetizer for you to be fair minded enough to read the Multi Level Canon thread. Then perhaps you can tell us if you believe or not whether James contradicts Paul or you also subscribe to the hybrid notion of "justification before men" in chapter 2 of James.

    I wish we would stick here on the questions Brandan proposed; at least as a courtesy for the person who grants all the privilege to post here, to wit, Brandan, or Darth Gill...

    Please, no new member should post in this thread about the book of James without reading beforehand the thread Multi Level Canon. That is a minimum display of courtesy here so we don't have to repeat the same old same old over and over again!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  10. #50
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    rlhuckle:
    It is my understanding that the 66 book canon was closed prior to the (roman and orthodox?)church's apostasy.

    This is the very ‘fact’ assumed by so many that we have opposed here. First of all, the timing of the great apostasy is a major issue. I have often presented my conviction that it started in the first century, not in the 5th or 6th century as affirmed by most Protestants. Secondly, I do not believe that the exact 66-book canon list affirmed by Reformed teachers as self-authenticating can be found prior to Calvin. I’m still looking for an earlier occurrence. The canon of Athanasius (in my view, an apostate on the gospel in spite of his work defending Christology) is the closest list; he omitted Lamentations and included Baruch. Yet his list was by no means universally accepted as we have seen in the canon studies. Some branches of the ‘church’ added more apocryphal books, others omitted some and sometimes added a ‘few’ others.

    Why would God let His elect wallow in canonical error for centuries?

    Brandan has already answered this. Why does God allow ANY truth to be hid for centuries? If this hiding of certain truths from many was not a part of his purpose, there would never have been a great apostasy!

    Gideon: Bob thank you for your reply, but it seems to me after going back over your post's you want to reclassify by these methods of yours to a Higher and Lower canon, in your posts you would put Revelation into a Lower canon, am i correct?, this would surely apply to 2 Peter, unless you have only one new Testement book James in your Lower canon,
    could i ask why you have started with James first to examine, also you say Luther made a good argument for including 2 Peter we dont have the 66 book canon because of Luther, or as you said because of Calvin, we have the 66 books in God being the Author and providentialy providing them to us today, do you think God left the canon to be decided by Luther or by me or you think again Bob.

    Please provide me with the quote where I stated that Revelation should be re-classified into the lower canon. I never said that! On the issue of who should discern the canon, of course this cannot be done by one person for all believers–so the issue of who should decide it is a red herring. We are discussing here the correct HERMENEUTIC for discerning the canon, not the one person that should decide it for all or whether all believers must accept the exact same high-canon.

    JG:Why would there be a dispute about the brother of Jesus as the author of the book of James? He was an apostle. Following are various writings among many: The apostle Paul also refers to James as the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

    We are not debating the person of James the brother of Jesus here; that is a different discussion. If you believe that he was an apostle, you deny that an apostle had to be chosen and commissioned by Jesus Christ himself. The disciples cast the lot on Matthias to fill the missing slot of Judas, yet we hear nothing of Matthias beyond that point. God chose Paul as the 12th apostle–that is clear. And God chose ONLY 12 apostles; the foundation of the people of God is built on the 12 apostles and the lamb (Rev. 21:14). The claim that James the brother of Jesus was an apostle is false. Some no doubt tried to promote him to such a status, just as the lot was cast on Matthias. But Paul is not saying that James is an apostle in this passage. He is simply saying that he say none of the other apostles, ONLY James the Lord’s brother; i.e., James was the only other leader of Christian repute that Paul saw on this particular trip to Jerusalem. Paul does not contradict John or Christ himself who chose 12 apostles and that’s all.

    Harald: I have given my evidence why I believe the epistle of James is not 1st century at all, if anyone cares to go back and read it. But your date in the 60's A.D. is denied by all except those of the dispensational hermeneutic–for obvious reasons.

    Lion:The reason a bound book of 66 was not there in the churches infancy was because ot was not needed. Regardless of what you or others may think, God would not leave His believers destitute for so long completely. You can attribute it to His Sovereignty, but this is a cop out and pat answer. He ALWAYS kept a remnant who did nto bow down to baal

    If the 66 book canon was not needed in the infancy of the ‘church’, why in the flaming barbecue is it needed now? Did the early believers need less scripture than US? I guess they did not bow down to Baal because they did not know of certain books to criticize that we now have! Also, I guess they were ‘not left destitute completely’ for some reason--what reason who knows? You certainly did not make the reason plain in what you said above! Certainly they did not have all of the books we have–were they BETTER OFF or WORSE because of this?

    On Ridderbos, he plain out lied on this issue just like he lied and mocked our sovereign God (on the doctrine of election) in "Paul, an Outline of his Theology".

    "Pauls Gospel" is NOT the standard for canonical books Brandan. How could it be? What do we do with the OT then? If Paul is the barometer, or hermeneutic, then he had plenty of time to write about the book of James.

    There was no book of James at that time. There were some sayings of James that he uttered at the temple in circulation called the "ascents of James."

    He had plenty of time to anathamise him, but yet, he gives him the right hand of fellowship. How could this be?

    Irrelevant COMPLETELY! He also gave Demas, Alexander, Hymaneus, and Philetus the right hand of fellowship at one point in his ministry. And we really do not know where James the brother of Jesus stood on these issues; the epistle of James is attributed to him by tradition only. Part of it may be his writing.

    Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, not james, paul, esther, not anyone else. He is the law giver, the grace giver, our command giver!!!!! You keep harping on me depending on what churches... Even Luthers own church came to their senses and included the books without question!!!!!!

    This took a long time; we posted evidence in the canon thread of how long it took the Lutherans to fully canonize these books. It was long after Calvin gave us the current canon.

    Christ gave Paul the final revelation of the gospel which is to judge everything. Either you accept Paul’s own testimony in Galatians or you deny it. I do not believe that we would even have the writings of John except for Paul’s testimony, for the gospel of Paul tore him away from the Jerusalem perverts claiming to follow James (Ebionites); after meeting Paul and hearing his testimony John saw the true meaning of Christ’s words that he had previously recorded.

    I will mention this again, and you and the crew can deny it al you want, but this mirrors exactly what the perpetrators of higher criticism do BK. Let us cut out of our writ everythign that does not line up with what you believe. Cut it out. Rip it from the binding. Get rid of Matt 5. Get rid of Matt 25, Get rid of everything that has an if clause. Get rid of anything Pauls says about being zealous for good works. Rip out Gods Holy word. GOd will not stop you bk. Even thomas jefferson had no divine barrier against clipping his own bible. I for one trust that our Lord providentailly controoled the situation from beginning to end.

    Joe, if you believe this you have no reason to be here! Go join the threads of the liberal skeptics since you believe we are the same as them. You might be happier!

    You state deviation from the above statement of yours will lead to error. Well this novel idea is in line with J E D P of wellhaussen/graph error. You have mentioned that this issue is because me and harald do not like authority. Well I have no issue with it. What I have issue with is when NOTHING is left alone. WHat is sacred brandan? What if I came in one day and said "I have seriously studied the issue of the trinity, and we have been lied to for 2000 years!!!!! Away with it, away with it." Then presented my theory and opinions, what would you say? Would you even entertain it?

    Go join the deniers of the Trinity and those who believe in J E D P, since you believe that we are the same as them! I can give you recommendations of message boards if you like! This accusation is so outrageous that I will not attempt to answer it; it does not deserve an answer.

    Harald: The dispensational method does not resort to "nitpicking of certain verbiage" (Higby re 2Peter) when it comes to any or whatever writing of the present canon. It does not take issue with words God has breathed out. If Higby deems 2Peter God-breathed he has no reason whatever to even to begin with consider such a profane thing as nitpicking re. some of God's inspired words or expressions in 2Peter. Even hinting at such a thing shows he does not truly believe 2Peter is entirely God-breathed. He seems to hold to some theory of semi-Godbreathedness. Maybe Bob himself will explain himself.

    Firstly, I was not referring to the dispensational method at all when discussing 2 Peter. Show me the evidence that I was! Secondly, I was criticizing the LIBERAL SKEPTICS WHO DENY 2 PETER when I referred to "nitpicking of certain verbage." If the fact that I even brought it up shows that I am a skeptic, well, that is for all to judge! Nonetheless, my faith does not rise or fall based on the authenticity of 2 Peter.

    jmgipson:
    One thing I have noticed about the early church writers is the lack of material on anything except false doctrine they were writing against. For example, I can't find anything on the free willers before Augustine. Please refer me to writings before this if you have them. I will read even a boat load if I have to.

    Go read the first apology of Justin Martyr, he is the author of the ‘christian baptized’ free-will theology of Plato! Every time ‘Arminian’ is used in ChristenDUMB it should be replaced with ‘Justinian’!
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  11. #51
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Bob, that was an AWESOME POST! THank you! I normally don't congratulate people for their posts (other than Noteworthy Post awards), but that was great. Thank you brother!
    This is my signature.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    Bob, that was an AWESOME POST! THank you! I normally don't congratulate people for their posts (other than Noteworthy Post awards), but that was great. Thank you brother!
    ECHO, ECHO, ECHO,ECHO, ECHO, echo...

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Posts
    607
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Well, I have to be honest and say I do not have enough background to contribute to this thread. I will have to read the large thread “The Multi-level Canon” , the writings of Justin Martyr, and any others you might suggest. I must confess though it is not high on my priority list being that I do not really use James as support for any of my theology. I think for now I will just agree to disagree with you brothers and jump into the multi-level thread. Thanks for your comments.

    John

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Hey GraceAmbassador
    Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed. So you use other sources to make your point. It sounds like from your confident to foolish post that you actually handled the dead sea scrolls.I would think that you have gone to heaven and got a special revelation from God. Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up. I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture. I know guys like you ,they ignore the facts. Its a free country there buddy, and i am free to post my sources. Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. I will guarantee you that my spirit is closer to a proper understanding of this issue than yours is. Thanks.

  15. #55
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by mybigGod
    Hey GraceAmbassador
    Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed.
    You're right, Milt is hard headed. I like him that way! Thanks brother Milt for being a hard headed pit bull guardian of Grace!

    Quote Originally Posted by mybiggod
    So you use other sources to make your point.
    You are a walking paradox, aren't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up.
    We know you do. We really don't care though. That's the point we've been trying to make!

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture.
    No you won't! Why? Because I said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    I know guys like you they ignore the facts.
    I know guys like you too.

    Quote Originally Posted by mbg
    Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. Thanks.
    This is laughable. I'm glad for you. Now please, don't post in this thread unless you've read the other related thread.

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Ok i will make this a matter of prayer. As you know i am a warrior. Hey really i will be back to post what i want . Thanks. You think your hard headed, you dont know me!

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by mybigGod
    Hey GraceAmbassador
    Thanks for your diss. You are really hard headed. So you use other sources to make your point. It sounds like from your confident to foolish post that you actually handled the dead sea scrolls.I would think that you have gone to heaven and got a special revelation from God. Look, I have more reformers on my side than any of your fanciful imaginations can dream up. I will start a thread about the real truth of the cannon by people who actually hold to a consistent and historical view point on the authority of scripture. I know guys like you they ignore the facts. Its a free country there buddy, and i am free to post my sources. Hey also i am not a canon expert but i have done much exegetical work. I still don't understand how a person can diss the soveriegnty of God. I will guarantee you that my spirit is in closer to a proper understanding of this issue than yours is. You need to repent of your pride.Thanks.
    I have no idea where you get your ideas about me or my thinking from... I certainly proposed some honest questions to you and you chose to use a bad taste dose of sarcasm but not even adventured to answer them... Oh, by the way, there is a lot of heretics out there that also have a lot of reformers on their side... that does not impress me! Gurus cannot determine anything on my end!

    You say we ignore the facts? That's hopeless!

    So, your spirit is closer to the issue than mine (ours) is? Great! Perhaps we found the fountain of wisdom if you pardon my own dose of sarcasm...

    Young novice, you don't even know me and hopefully never will and never will tread the terrains that I did and still do in God's vinyeard... If you did know me you would probably realize that perhaps, in terms of your assumed over-spirituality, you have just shown some very youthful and even childish way to face issues...

    God's Sovereignty? I propose that you know nothing of it! Arguments here have been presented that God was Sovereign over errors that remained for ages for His own purpose... But why I still give heed to a youthful mouthed person?

    Please, return to whatever hint of adulthood you have left on you and answer the questions I asked and PLEASE, follow the SUGGESTION I proposed about reading the other thread. Kiddish behavior does not suit those who really wish to make their point across here. We already have a couple of court jesters here and there is no more job openings for such in this Forum.

    Finally, if what I said (anything I said) came through as a diss, perhaps your pride is the one that needs to be watched. What is the matter? You cannot be asked to reply a few questions or read a few articles before you make your propositions? Why is this too much to ask you you?

    Again, PLEASE, regain composure, act like an adult and just say that you are not interested in answering the questions and do not wish to read the other thread because you simply decided that you will not change your mind! That's perfectly all right! It will not make anyone here think any less or any more of you. It will only lead us to believe that you are parroting traditions without thinking, perhaps even the traditions of the many reformers you have on your side!

    By the way, I am not your buddy! If anything I am your Brother in Christ, most likely, judging by the way you write, your elder. Follow James, since you believe it to be inspired and fulfill all that is in it so you can justify your faith "before men" lest I think that your faith is dead... I know, you don't care what I think but then again, if you don't care what I think, who do you care what they think to "justify your faith before them"? If you don't care to justify your faith before men as some of your reformers "buddies" purport, then I have to count you as a hypocrite who believes in something inspired that he is not willing to obey.

    In case you don't believe that James in chapter 2, the one that contradicts Paul, does not speak in "justification before men" but really "justification before God" join the club of those who believe that James contradicts Paul which makes his canonicity doubtful. If you do believe that James speaks of justification before men, please, justify your faith before us with works in context with James 2, again, lest we think your faith is dead!

    In all, please, GROW UP!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Quote Originally Posted by mybigGod
    Ok i will make this a matter of prayer. As you know i am a warrior. Hey really i will be back to post what i want . Thanks. You think your hard headed, you dont know me!
    No, I don't think you are hard headed and really does not take much to know you! I think you are unpolite, unclassy, not very bright, a hypocrite who knows not whereof he speaks, who can not even follow simple instructions or requests made with honesty and courtesy, a prideful youngster who just saw the ocean and now try to teach his buddies about oceanography, a child who just learned how to read time and now wants to teach his playmates how to build a watch, who drops foolish phrases such as "I have reformers on my side" as if this would scare anyone here as the bully who says "You shouda seen my gang"...

    I could go on but I am not stooping to this foolishness!

    I will allow you to make a fool of yourself a couple of more times; when no one else has any doubt of your folly I will spit you out of this Forum as one spits out sour milk after a careless sip!

    If you wish to prove yourself as someone worth debating with, please, present arguments as we did; so far you have posted none other than being foolish...

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    Obviously since you have taken the high road and you think you are rite i must be a young infant compared to you. Look i am used to arguing a point and if i want to read what you ask me its my decision . i have a rite to reject that proposal. One thing i do not do is parrot by threats. I do not know who you are and i do not care about your education. I consider this issue of the book of James as a life and death struggle for the soul of christian civilation. Ive spent more time in meditation in the spiritual warfare for the local church through memorization of the book of Psalms that you will ever do in a life time. You think this is an intellectual exercise. This battle runs through my blood. I morn and groan for these spiritual things.You can throw me out i believe that i am rite about the book of James. You are wrong. You can throw me out or give me a chance to post my reformers. Its up to you. I will give you a run for your money. You have got my spiritual blood flowing.

  20. #60
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: Calvin's 66 book Canon

    jmgipson: I must confess though it is not high on my priority list being that I do not really use James as support for any of my theology.

    Good, what a relief! You will have much peace of mind, body, and soul because of this!

    Mybiggod, you are wasting your time unless you throw out the cheap polemics and begin to dialog on the issues with us.

    To all: Which of the 4 canon hermeneutics do you support and why? This question goes to all contributors. Discard all arguments over certain books for 10 minutes and tell us why you support a particular canon hermeneutic. It can even be one that hasn't been stated yet IF it is truly unique and not a different version of the four. Don't try and say that you support more than one, however--for the positions on this are mutually exclusive by very definition!
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Acts 17 verses 30-31
    By EnglishRose in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-13-06, 02:05 PM
  2. Evangelicals driven from homes by RC mobs
    By Reformed Presby in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-05, 06:14 PM
  3. Hurricane Katrina
    By Brandan in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 09-21-05, 08:27 PM
  4. conditional time salvation
    By earthenvessel in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-12-05, 09:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •