What do you mean by "all scripture for teaching and reproof, not just what we traditionally say is canon?"
Megachurches
- Thread starter Godspell
- Start date
Sometimes a small church is small for a reason, I have seen the good news turned to awful news and no one in their right mind wants to join a group of unhappy and bitter religious folks as they judge and condemn each other to death in this world. Having said that, sometimes I believe that God could restrict the growth of a group to protect that group and its members and the purity of its worship. I would say that if a group has no growth that its most likely a dying body and often certain members of that body are not representing Christ as they should.
The reservation I have with career clergy is that is what the pharisees did and look what happened?
They clung to tradition over the faith and reliance upon God and his Word.
So too do the denominations do the same. Their rules and regulations as set forth by tradition and council now supersede the Two Great Commands.
Worst is they allow willfully in sin people to be clerics. This is an abomination in itself.
Allowing fornicators and adulterers that are engaged in their sins often openly as leaders only sends the message that the flock may follow suit.
Just as the pharisees also engaged in open sin.
They are in full rebellion to The King, wolvesheads and traitors.
I see way too many discount scripture.
Catholics have the Apocrypha and the protestants do not. They say it is not inspired enough.
They discount the dead sea scrolls even though God revealed them for a purpose. Again not in the 'canon'.
The so-called canon was conceived in many forms.
The NT was on first draft one gospel and some letters of Paul.
The second was four times the size now.
The one that was finally adopted almost did not include Revelation because Ireaneus did not think that book was for the laity.
HE MADE THAT CALL ALONE.
It was not until people begged to include it did he. People had to BEG for it.
Was that following God's will to not include it?
Timothy said ALL scripture was good. Let it be ALL.
Going to one growing up, while I had fun, there was a disconnect in that it turned into what we got out of it ( entertainment ) rather than what we were giving to God.
But I think I heard somewhere that the typical attendance term for the average attendee was about 5 or 6 months before they leave. Many people have trouble finding Christ in loud crowds.
But I think I heard somewhere that the typical attendance term for the average attendee was about 5 or 6 months before they leave. Many people have trouble finding Christ in loud crowds.
In your opinion, the books left out of the canon should have been included?
I am saying that ALL scripture is profitable as Timothy had said.
Every scrap has something to teach one way or the other.
Or else it would not have been written.
What people fail to get in our modern world is that people back then just did not go down to the shop, grab a some paper and pen and start writing.
So if it was written, there was a great deal of work done on it. Should we not be all able to see everything?
What is so horrid in it that people should be banned from reading it? Ireneaus wanted Revelation left out, why? Wasn't he being led by God? Did God want it left out and he caved to popular opinion? Or was popular opinion the will of God overriding Ireneaus?
What would you have said if Revelation was left out and now would be not canon?
We must keep in mind that what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy was in regards to Scripture that was written, which was the OT, not the NT. But in all fairness, the NT is also profitable in reproof and teaching.
But the important part of Scripture is that it is literally written through vehicles of God. They are authentically inspired by God. The books canonized were recognized as this, and the books left out were recognized as not being authentically inspired by God. It's possible that those books left out of the Bible are interesting, intelligent, and even have great advice, but if they aren't inspired works of the Holy Spirit, then they cannot be classified as holy, thus aren't valid Scripture.
You're right about the process of writing back then. It was extremely costly to write a book, but costliness doesn't equal holiness. 3 John is only a chapter long, but it is still understood as part of God's Word.
St. Irenaeus, I believe, wasn't the only bishop who had concern for Revelation. A think many had concern with including it. This is why it lead to a council in 397 AD where the bishops had to decide once and for all which books were truly God's Word and which weren't. They came to the sound conclusion that Revelation is and some of the others were not.
Had Revelation been left out, it would mean either it really wasn't inspired by God or it would mean the Holy Spirit didn't work through those who canonized the Bible, thus leaving us with a possibly flawed book.
Do you believe the lost books (Thomas, Judas, Peter, etc.) need to be added?
I think they need to be considered and not just tossed into garbage with the reactionary phrase NOT CANON.
These things have some profit lest they would not have survived until now or be re-discovered.
Is that not GOD saying here have a look at this? If he didn't want that they would be gone.
I'm not suggesting there isn't value to their writings, but we can't claim they are holy without any sort of authority but our own fallible perspectives.
And again, Irenaeus wold have fallibly axed Revelation had he gotten his way.
But God intervened.
The dead sea scrolls were lost for ages. Then God intervened.
What then is the difference between Revelation and the dead sea scrolls?
You're right that St. Irenaeus would have been erroneous in axing Revelation as we understand it. But the difference between these two is that Church authority, through the Holy Spirit's guidance, acted upon what was valid and what wasn't. We know the Scriptures cannot be added to or cut up. St. Irenaeus wasn't the only bishop to challenge Revelation. Hence the council that was had. It ultimately was an event to say "Some of you believe these books are legitimately holy, and some of you don't. We need to get to the bottom of it and figure out which are and which aren't." Once they were canonized, this meant the discussion was over.
Those who continue to challenge it, with all due respect, are being prideful.
It's not saying that an appreciation for the lost books or any other books outside of the Bible is wrong, but to suggest they too are holy and must be added to it is a different story.
We may be getting off subject though. What were you saying about mega churches?
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES......Oh, did I say YES!!!!!!! Far too many men (men because in small churches it is MEN who are in ALL positions of influences) in small churches are BIG FISH IN SMALL PONDS.
I like Mega Churches even though I don't go to one
I wish there were more
I find them just as critical to the body as a small or medium sized church
I wish there were more
I find them just as critical to the body as a small or medium sized church
Dave, with all due respect, if you think the canonization of the Bible was an effort of democracy, then I encourage you to read about the Council of Nicea. It wasn't a mere democratic effort. As Christians, we believe the Bible is literally God speaking through the authors and brought to us. The council was had to figure out, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, to understand which were and which weren't.
Today, either we accept the Scriptures as infallibly true or we don't.
They were at odds on what was or wasn't Righteous.
They voted.
The majority won, the minority capitulated so there would not be another schism.
And it happened again when the Protestants removed the Apocrypha from their bibles.
Who do you believe got it wrong and why?
They all have it wrong.
They turned their backs on the rightful order of priesthood.
That is why their is strife between them.
Why there are schisms.
They are a house divided.
Why?
Because they are clinging onto old wine.
They say it tastes better.
Who got it right? Who understood the Holy Spirit correctly?