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

Not silly just very absurd!

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.

 

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!

 

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!"

 

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?

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!

 

I don't believe that I said:

I said:

I believe there is a difference!

 

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:

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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