# John Frame and Bibliolatry



## Knight (Dec 3, 2009)

What is bibliolatry? I ask because John Frame, a theologian I respect, makes the following points in _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_, which cause me to wonder whether I rightly understand bibliolatry:

1. _The speech of God has divine attributes _(cf. Genesis 18:14; Psalm 19:7; 119:7, 86, 89, 129, 160; Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:15) - _"Only God has these attributes in total perfection. So, the word is God."_
2. _The word of God is an object of worship_ (cf. Psalm 56:4, 10; Psalm 119:120, 161-162, Isaiah 66:5) - _"Since David worships the words here, we cannot escape the conclusion that the word is divine."_
3. _The word is God_ - (cf. John 1:1) - _"I want you to see that this passage does not only identify Jesus with God; it also identifies God's speech with God."_

Would you call John Frame a bibliolater? Why or why not? If you would, would you intend it as a put-down?


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

The only time I've heard the term used is by heretics using it to levy a charge against holding to the inerrancy of the Bible. They try to equate inerrancy with idolizing and worshipping the Bible.


----------



## Knight (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> The only time I've heard the term used is by heretics using it to levy a charge against holding to the inerrancy of the Bible. They try to equate inerrancy with idolizing and worshipping the Bible.



I've often heard it used against KJVOs.


----------



## Zenas (Dec 3, 2009)

That's what I get for hanging around Facebook.


----------



## Knight (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> That's what I get for hanging around Facebook.



I know what you mean


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 3, 2009)

Knight said:


> What is bibliolatry? I ask because John Frame, a theologian I respect, makes the following points in _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_, which cause me to wonder whether I rightly understand bibliolatry:
> 
> Would you call John Frame a bibliolater? Why or why not? If you would, would you intend it as a put-down?



I read "Salvation..." some time ago as well as some of his other works and don't remember getting that impression. Frame appears to be stating that the words of God, by necessity, carry ultimate authority since God has chosen to reveal Himself in a salvific way through his word, i.e., the Scriptures (natural revelation being not sufficient for salvation). To then opine that Frame "worships" the Bible would be at least, a mischaracterization or worse, a strawman argument to discredit Frame.

I would agree that the KJVO gang borders on bibliolatry though in their dismissive attitude toward other translations (ESV, NIV, NASB). If you'd like more info on this, go to James White's website Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White and watch some of the YouTube debates he has with some of the KJVO folks.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 3, 2009)

I found the distinction made here helpful, that there is a difference between the Essential, and the external, Word -- I think that would have bearing on some of what John Frame says above? 

Two Points from Owen on Scripture The Heinrich Bullinger Page


----------



## El Tejano (Dec 3, 2009)

> 1. _The speech of God has divine attributes _(cf. Genesis 18:14; Psalm 19:7; 119:7, 86, 89, 129, 160; Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:15) - _"Only God has these attributes in total perfection. So, the word is God."_
> 2. _The word of God is an object of worship_ (cf. Psalm 56:4, 10; Psalm 119:120, 161-162, Isaiah 66:5) - _"Since David worships the words here, we cannot escape the conclusion that the word is divine."_
> 3. _The word is God_ - (cf. John 1:1) - _"I want you to see that this passage does not only identify Jesus with God; it also identifies God's speech with God."_


Would we not first have to find fault with Frame's interpretation of these passages? If he hasn't made an interpretive error then he says nothing Scripture does not say, in which case he's not a bibliolator. Talk of worshipping the word is not the same as talk of worshipping the Bible. There is a distinction, however slight.


----------



## raekwon (Dec 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> The only time I've heard the term used is by heretics using it to levy a charge against holding to the inerrancy of the Bible. They try to equate inerrancy with idolizing and worshipping the Bible.



Yep.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 3, 2009)

Liberals and neo-evangelicals use this word "bibliolatry" for conservative and Reformed Christians, who believe in the inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures.

They also might cavil that we are turning the Bible into a "paper Pope".

It's almost certainly a good sign if such "slurs" are heading in your direction.

In one of the Psalms (which one?) the Psalmist - under divine inspiration of course - says that the LORD has exalted His Word _above_ His Great Name. The Name of God includes all His attributes, all that He is.

So this verse is at least saying we are to reverence God's Word as much as God Himself.


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 3, 2009)

It's probably important to make the distinction between God's eternal speech and his written word. Jesus is the word of God, as the eternal communicator and revealer of God - the eternal speech, as it were. The Bible is God lisping to us in a temporal, situation specific self-disclosure. To worship the Bible is idolatry, to worship Jesus is righteousness.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Dec 3, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> Knight said:
> 
> 
> > What is bibliolatry? I ask because John Frame, a theologian I respect, makes the following points in _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_, which cause me to wonder whether I rightly understand bibliolatry:
> ...




I'd like to see James debate with some KJV folks from the reformed camp like a Joel Beeke or someone from the Trinitarian Bible Society. I reccomend the reading at the TBS site for matierial that refutes James White's views.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 3, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> It's probably important to make the distinction between God's eternal speech and his written word. Jesus is the word of God, as the eternal communicator and revealer of God - the eternal speech, as it were. The Bible is God lisping to us in a temporal, situation specific self-disclosure. To worship the Bible is idolatry, to worship Jesus is righteousness.



I think this was dealt with before in another thread. If we are to reverence God's Word "above all His great Name" how is it wrong to "worship the Bible" when the Bible _is_ God's Word in written form?

Here's a couple of threads, but there's a better one on this subject than these:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/content-bible-divine-53214/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/help-me-flesh-out-idea-please-53169/#post687486


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 3, 2009)

"What is bibliolatry?" 

I think the only plausible use of the term is to describe superstitious attitudes about a physical book containing the Words of Scripture.

If you drop your Bible into a mud puddle and feel that you have committed a trangression over and above the usual dismay at ruining a book, that would be bibliolatry. If you place your Bible in a prominent place in your house and bow before it, that is probably bibliolatry. If you treat your Bible with little rituals, like never placing another book on top of it or never putting it under the chair--maybe it is a form of idolatry. Of course, if it is an old and treasured Bible, it may be common sense too.

If you read it and consider that it is God speaking true and eternal words, that is not bibliolatry. In fact, reverence for the words spoken in Scripture is far from improper. David, among many others, tells us that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> It's probably important to make the distinction between God's eternal speech and his written word. Jesus is the word of God, as the eternal communicator and revealer of God - the eternal speech, as it were. The Bible is God lisping to us in a temporal, situation specific self-disclosure. To worship the Bible is idolatry, to worship Jesus is righteousness.



All revelation to man is, by definition, Ectypal and not Archetypal. If you restrict that which can be worshiped by men to God as His is in Himself then there is no content that man can apprehend and worship. Ectypal theology is not "less true" or "less to be worshiped" because it is accomodated to human form. There is no worship of Jesus apart from that which we understand by Ectypal theology. We never share in the Divine essence. The historical events, the words God has spoken, the acts He has performed are all recorded for us and these historical acts are presented as reasons by God Himself that we are to worship and obey.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Liberals and neo-evangelicals use this word "bibliolatry" for conservative and Reformed Christians, who believe in the inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of the Scriptures.
> 
> They also might cavil that we are turning the Bible into a "paper Pope".
> 
> ...



Good points. I wish I could find the arguments utilized but, during the revision of the Baptist Faith and Message, there was a move to call Christ the exegetical standard as opposed to the Words of Scripture. Liberals and neo-Orthodox see the Word and Truth as existing apart from or beyond or above the historical content. The Scriptures testify to God revealing Himself through the same. The Scriptures do not become the Word of God, they are the Word of God as we have them.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 3, 2009)

The problem I have with John Frame's reasoning there occurs with his second point. None of the Hebrew terms used in those passages requires us to affirm that the word is being worshiped in the way that we understand worship, and it is actually a stretch with a few of those passages. If it cannot be demanded by those (or other) passages that the Scriptures are themselves an object of worship then the rest of his argument will not follow.

I didn't take time to compare the LXX translation of those passages, but would be surprised to find any of the common Greek terms for worship used. Though, I may be mistaken.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 3, 2009)

> I'd like to see James debate with some KJV folks from the reformed camp like a Joel Beeke or someone from the Trinitarian Bible Society. I reccomend the reading at the TBS site for matierial that refutes James White's views.



White's true focus is the KJVO crowd, not the responsible KJV folks. While it is true that he holds to the CT, he reserves his big guns for the KJVO types who do border on bibliolatry. It would be fun to hear a debate between Beeke (or someone of his stature) and White.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 3, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> > I'd like to see James debate with some KJV folks from the reformed camp like a Joel Beeke or someone from the Trinitarian Bible Society. I reccomend the reading at the TBS site for matierial that refutes James White's views.
> 
> 
> 
> White's true focus is the KJVO crowd, not the responsible KJV folks. While it is true that he holds to the CT, he reserves his big guns for the KJVO types who do border on bibliolatry. It would be fun to hear a debate between Beeke (or someone of his stature) and White.



Yes, and to clarify my earlier post, I too was referring to the kooky KJVO crowd who have elevated conspiracy theory to an artform, e.g., Gail Riplinger and other assorted nutcases. Check out Riplinger's algorithm to conclude NIV + NASB = SIN Truly wacked out!


----------



## steadfast7 (Dec 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > It's probably important to make the distinction between God's eternal speech and his written word. Jesus is the word of God, as the eternal communicator and revealer of God - the eternal speech, as it were. The Bible is God lisping to us in a temporal, situation specific self-disclosure. To worship the Bible is idolatry, to worship Jesus is righteousness.
> ...



There are instances when the Saints fell down in worship before the "form of God", like Moses and Isaiah. In other places we are told that no can see God, for he dwells in unapproachable light. Were they worshipping God as he is in himself, or were they worshipping a form of God? Is Jesus himself merely a form or the very person of God? I'm not sure how helpful archetypal language is in theology when it is completely unknowable. All we have is the ectypal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2009)

It is not merely "helpful" but necessary because we realize that we are creatures and not the Creator. Many forms of epistemology try to make our knowledge univocal with God's. The Archetypal distinction does not make God's wisdom simply within a genus of wise things but preserves the idea that God's knowledge and wisdom are of His essence and we do not share in His essence. Our knowledge is wholly dependent upon His revelation such that to know anything is to be humble and realize that we know nothing except in dependence upon Him.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 3, 2009)

> There are instances when the Saints fell down in worship before the "form of God", like Moses and Isaiah. In other places we are told that no can see God, for he dwells in unapproachable light. Were they worshipping God as he is in himself, or were they worshipping a form of God? Is Jesus himself merely a form or the very person of God? I'm not sure how helpful archetypal language is in theology when it is completely unknowable. All we have is the ectypal.



Jesus is the Word or Revelation of God, which Word is also God. He is the Image of God in a way in which no other man is or has been. When they worshipped Jesus while He was here on Earth, and when we worship Jesus we are worshipping God, and the Word of God revealed in His human soul and body. Not that a created human soul and body should be worshipped in themselves. But this soul and body belong now to God and share in the worship that is ascribed to God because God is especially revealed in Christ's humanity. The Lamb is in the midst of the Throne.

We are permitted to show the same respect for Christ's human soul and body that we show for God, because that is how God has chosen to manifest Himself. Even Christ's blood is called "the blood of God" (Acts 20:28)

Please correct me if I'm wrong (?) And what implications does this have for our attitude to the written Word of God, the Bible?


----------



## Knight (Dec 5, 2009)

So I guess I'm still confused. It seems the general consensus is agreement that Frame's observations are correct, if not his conclusion. I guess the question could be reframed as follows:

Is God's essence His thoughts?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 5, 2009)

Knight said:


> So I guess I'm still confused. It seems the general consensus is agreement that Frame's observations are correct, if not his conclusion. I guess the question could be reframed as follows:
> 
> Is God's essence His thoughts?



What about is God's Word God? See John 1:1.

Remember the whole of the Bible came to us _through_ the Logos and _by_ the Holy Spirit.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 5, 2009)

I still think that perhaps John Frame has not been careful enough in his statements (as quoted) to distinguish between the Essential and the external Word; and that this makes for confusion -- at least it does, for me? The Logos, second person of the Trinity, is God; the scriptures and the accommodated thoughts they express etc. though evidencing their divine origin, and though not separable from this origin (I'm speaking as a housewife, so please forgive me if that's stated very badly), are not God?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 5, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> I still think that perhaps John Frame has not been careful enough in his statements (as quoted) to distinguish between the Essential and the external Word; and that this makes for confusion -- at least it does, for me? The Logos, second person of the Trinity, is God; the scriptures and the accommodated thoughts they express etc. though evidencing their divine origin, and though not separable from this origin (I'm speaking as a housewife, so please forgive me if that's stated very badly), are not God?



I think the thought(s) of God expressed in the words He chose, through the human vessels He chose, is very much God, being the Word of God.

The paper and ink, mistakes in textual criticism, and erroneous exegesis are not God or of God.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 5, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> I think the thought(s) of God expressed in the words He chose, through the human vessels He chose, is very much God, being the Word of God.
> 
> The paper and ink, mistakes in textual criticism, and erroneous exegesis are not God or of God.



I'm sorry, my mind is once again screeching to a halt -- though this may be because I'm in the middle of making chicken soup for dinner. God is simple and infinite; surely His accommodated 'thoughts' by very definition, are neither simple, nor infinite. They are external words; they cannot be God; though inseparable in their nature from Him. Again, please forgive me for stating these things badly. I'm actually going to bow out and watch what happens next because I feel so uncomfortable stating these things; but I cannot agree with the above, so far as I have understanding?

-----Added 12/5/2009 at 06:51:13 EST-----

(Just to clarify the point of my confusion, Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate: it sounds like what is being claimed would lead to believing that Scripture is another incarnation of the second person of the Godhead -- apart from human materials and errors.)


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 11, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > I think the thought(s) of God expressed in the words He chose, through the human vessels He chose, is very much God, being the Word of God.
> ...



What is the orthodox teaching on this? The Bible is a divine Creation through which God spoke and still speaks through His Logos. It is a revelation of God and His Mind from cover to cover.

Jesus Christ as to His humanity is also a divine Creation through which God spoke, still speaks and will yet speak through His Logos. He is a revelation of God and His Mind and embodies God's mind and will revealed in special and general revelation. 



> (Just to clarify the point of my confusion, Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate: it sounds like what is being claimed would lead to believing that Scripture is another incarnation of the second person of the Godhead -- apart from human materials and errors.)


[/QUOTE]

Scripture isn't a Second Incarnation, but it, like the incarnation, and theophanies before, is a _special revelation_ which agrees with the incarnation and theophanies. 

The thoughts and teacings and commands expressed through Scripture are spiritual and divine and backed-up in a way, that is not true of other books, by the Holy Spirit. In the absence of the presence of the Incarnate Christ, Scripture opened up by the Holy Spirit of Christ, is God's Word and Truth to us.

Pardon me for these meandering and somewhat inchoate thoughts. How do you view God's Word as Divine? How do you relate the place of Scripture to the incarnate Christ?

To be honest, this is just an area I happen to be exploring in this thread. Maybe you could recommend some reading on it.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Dec 11, 2009)

*Calvin and Edwards*

I can't recall where the citations derive from, but in a study I did on the "devotional use" of Scripture, I recall reading Calvin saying something like “We owe to the Scriptures the same reverence we owe to God." And Jonathan Edwards expresses a similar sentiment when he writes: _“God’s law [is] that grand expression and emanation of the holiness of God’s nature, and prescription of holiness to the creature [and therefore] it is all along represented as the great object of the love, the complacence, and the rejoicing of the gracious nature, which prizes God’s commandments ‘above gold, yea, the finest gold;’ and to which they are ‘sweeter than honey and the honey-comb.’” _​


----------



## Paul Trask (Dec 11, 2009)

407-366-9493 EXT - 237 You can call him or write him and ask him yourself.

Campus Address:
Dr. John Frame
Reformed Theological Seminary
1231 Reformation Dr.
Oviedo, FL 32765


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 11, 2009)

the only time biblioatry is a correct term in my mind if the worship is of the physical book.


----------

