Scripture is, simply, the recorded word (or expression) of God.
In some cases. In others, it pretains to the history of God's People. There are books of the Bible (Esther) that do not even mention God (in the Hebrew version), while many other books seem to concentrate on the historical action of the Jewish people and God is in the background. And what do you think about other religions' scriptures? What is your view on other self-proclaimed holy books?
In all cases, the scriptures tell us something that God wants us to know. Hebrew/Jewish history (which is quite God-centric, BTW), the poetic writings, etc. are all of part of God's expression to us. The scriptures express God's message to us.
The consideration of the writings of other religious movements brings up a somewhat different issue.
The scriptures are accepted as believable by the Church, in part, because they were produced in a believeable way, present a believeable message, and meet the criteria for valid documentation.
The believeability of the writings of Mohammed and/or Joseph Smith ... is inferior to that of the scriptures ... because those writings each are the product of only one individual. The fact that the message of the scriptures involves many authors (30+) over a period of 5000 years or so gives it a definite advantage over these other writings. It’s not the product of one, possibly, deceived individual or even possible collusion.
The believeability of the Bible scripture is superior to that of any ‘other’ holy writings for similar reasons.
When it came down to it, it wasn’t the Church (initially) which convinced me of the validity of the Christian message ... it was the message of the scriptures. The Church, itself, was not particularly different than any other body of devoted individuals. It was the scriptures, themselves, that made the difference.
I believed in the scriptures first, ... then I came to believe in the Church.
It is God Who inspires it's writing ... and its God Who brings about its recognition.
So the claim goes. The Gnostic writings make the very same claim... They claim to come from God, to be inspired by God, and were recognized as such by Gnostic communities. I think God left another way for the man of 100 AD to decide where the TRUE Scriptures and teachings of Christ could be found.
I would say that the heritage of the scriptures (particularly those of the New Testament) from the actual Apostles of Jesus had a lot to do with that recognition.
The Church doesn't create or determine scripture. It is used by God as a conduit to present His scriptures to the world.
I disagree. Every writing of the Bible was created by the Church, a member of the Body of Christ.
I see the generation and compilation of the scriptures as a God-directed happening. I don’t see it as something which occurred as a result of the wisdom of men. Heaven help us if it did, for men can be quite foolish and wicked.
The Church also determines what is Scriptures by identifying the writing with the already-given teachings... There is no other way to get around that one. You merely fall into "begging the question" by your claim that the individual can determine the contents of Scriptures, because then each individual would have a different table of contents. We know by experience that God chooses not to work that way, but through His Church and their leaders. Without the visible Church, you would have no idea what WERE the Scriptures by which you were to lead your life by. This is just plain common sense. No diabolical reasoning here. We can't fall back on "God tells me what is Scripture" because the Bible has already been compiled by the Church. We thus rely on that determination already given. Those who rely on the individual are merely setting themselves up as an authority over what God has established.
I don’t think that anyone involved in this discussion has made the claim that they can determine the makeup of Christian scripture. That determination has been recognized by the entire Church for the last 1500+ years or so.
Protestants start with the scriptures, making them the primary and final guide to their belief and participation in the Christian community. The scriptures represent the gospel once given, ... there is no need to grant any man greater authority than the scriptures ... because noone around today was around when the gospel once given was given.
I agree with that statement more than the other you offered earlier. Not that it was wrong, but it was incomplete.
When it came down to it, it wasn’t the Church (initially) which convinced me of the validity of the Christian message ... it was the message of the scriptures. The Church, itself, was not particularly different than any other body of devoted individuals. It was the scriptures, themselves, that made the difference.
I believed in the scriptures first, ... then I came to believe in the Church.
I suppose we each come to believe in different ways. It will depend on what community you enter into and what they focus on and that will get your own focus. St Augustine said "If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel". In other words, the Church vouched for the Gospel message. When we look at the Church and we get to know people who do not hide the light of Christ, people begin to trust in what they trust in - the message of God given in the Scriptures and through the Church.
I initially approached the Bible as just another book, considering the claim of the Catholic Church as one in many claims to "know" the will of God. The Bible became historical true upon reading and studying it - and thus, the theology became believable. This is not done in a vacuum, as while this happened, I came into fellowship with faithful Christians who were bearing fruit. Thus, I was able to put the two together - the Bible and God working through the Community.
I see the generation and compilation of the scriptures as a God-directed happening.
That is a redundant statement, because EVERYTHING is a "God-directed happening", at least according to the Bible! Let's not be in such a hurry to dismiss the Church just to "protect" the Bible. We can love both, can't we?
I don’t see it as something which occurred as a result of the wisdom of men. Heaven help us if it did, for men can be quite foolish and wicked.
True, and why would God only guide these men in matters of choosing the Canon, and then leave? Didn't Christ promise the Church the Holy Spirit for all time? Didn't Christ promise to be with the Church for all time? Didn't Christ give the Church power to bind and loosen as in heaven? If God is "backing" the decision of the Canon, as He did in Acts 15 and the loosening of circumcision requirements, on what basis do we make the claim that God ONLY backed the Church in her Canon-making decisions? This is the basis for the Church's various dogmatic teachings of the Trinity and so forth - they are based on the presumption that God CONTINUES to guide the Church. If the Church was to rely on the wisdom of men, we would be like the Corinthians who ignore the Gospel of the Cross.
The scriptures represent the gospel once given, ... there is no need to grant any man greater authority than the scriptures ... because noone around today was around when the gospel once given was given.
Has this concept united the Church in its teachings? No. Believe it or not, the Bible is also an authority to Catholics - one that binds Tradition and not vice versus. What is important is not to ignore that thing called "Tradition", HOW we interpret the words of the Scriptures. You see, we read the Bible in a particular way based on what has been passed down. Certainly, you have experienced conversations with other Protestants where you disagree on Scriptures and its meaning? The heirachy is tasked with protecting proper interpretation, as we see in Paul's command to Timothy and Titus and the rest of the next generation of leaders of the Church. It is not a blank check to invent doctrines!
Regards