Faith is not blind faith, though many people's faith is blind. God has given us His Scripture and His Spirit in order to rightly interpret Scripture. He does this for EVERY believer, but not every believer takes advantage of it. In terms of the Canon, that some people accept by blind faith is evident. I think all of us did at first. However, our faith is affirmed when we read Scripture and see what IT TESTIFIES OF ITSELF. We believe the Words of Christ, Paul, Peter, James, Daniel, Moses, and all of the rest by Faith. We believe the Holy Spirit teaches by faith. We do not claim HUMAN infallibility but led the men of God who wrote Scripture in producing His Canon. It's God's Canon, not mans. Had there never been a council, there would still be a canon. If we don't believe it, there is still a canon. The Canon doesn't depend upon Man's affirmation of it. It is, since it is the written Word of God given by the plenary verbal inspiration of God. Regardless if I think Book X belongs in the Canon doesn't make it canonical or non-canonical. What makes it canonical is God's opinion of it. By faith, and by the affirmation of the Holy Spirit, I believe that when I pick up a Bible (Protestant for communication sake) I am reading Scripture. I do not do this blindly, for I have spent a lifetime becoming familiar with Scripture. When I see something that contradicts it, the red flag starts waving everywhere. But even at that I don't believe I have attained a Scriptural knowledge just by applying myself. Scripture says that the things of the Spirit are Spiritually discerned. I would be nowhere without the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
That is the best I can do at explaining why I believe that God established his Canon and believe that by faith.
Now, why do you believe that the Canon of Scripture did not exist until a group of Roman Catholic scholars got together in some council someplace declared what it was? Or, do you too believe that it existed as God inspired it and man's recognition of it makes no difference as far as canonicity? In other words, is your diagram
God---->Truth----->Scripture---->Man
or
Miscellaneous manuscripts containing truth claims----> Human intervention ---->Scripture?
And, if that is offensive to you (it is not meant to be), then at least admit this - you accept what you accept as Scripture by faith in the councils being led of God
I accept what I believe to be Scripture based upon faith in God's accessibility and willingness to reveal Himself (including His Word) to every believer regardless where they are and what their educational level is. My faith is affirmed by the portions of Scripture that I noted - which I believe are Scripture themselves, by faith.
In terms of the Canon, that some people accept by blind faith is evident.
Yes, I agree that is the primary situation. I qualified that earlier from blind faith to an informed decisions: We choose our church and canon simultaneously. I don't think this disagrees with your position here.
I think all of us did at first. However, our faith is affirmed when we read Scripture and see what IT TESTIFIES OF ITSELF.
This is both dependent on the canon and interpretation. Both sides in this claim this and proof text it. If your canon were different it would "testify of itself different."
What makes it canonical is God's opinion of it.
But I'm talking to Blogger and God's not registered on FR.. :). Obviously, B, it's us men and men before us arguing about what we think is God's opinion of what men wrote. We're stuck with that.
The Canon doesn't depend upon Man's affirmation of it.
I'm gonna disagree here. You're conflating God's Word with canon. We have the Word of God, this revealed, this written and THEN the canon. By definion "canon" is the group of written works accepted as genuine, authentic, inspired and true. By definition a canon a canon depends upon man's afirmation. Otherwise all writings are equally non-canonical.
God doesn't have group of written works some of which he considers His canon, some not..
why do you believe that the Canon of Scripture did not exist until a group of Roman Catholic scholars got together in some council someplace declared what it was?
I believe the canon is those writings accepted as the canon by the Church - by definition. Just as someone joining a Protestant Church accepts their canon.
I trust my authority, my Church on determining what is in the canon. I trust their knowledge of provenance and their spiritual knowledge of what Jesus and the Apostles taught in making their decisions on the canon.
You think the Reformers were right and knew better. I don't, so we have a difference in authority here.