[Kolokotronis]

"All those involved acted precisely as God had preordained it from before time. That would be the only way to ensure that the scriptures are not only inerrant, but perfect. The scriptures are God's revelations to His most beloved on earth. How could they be any less than perfect?"

and later:

"I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture."

If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church. Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances). Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established (by the way, I say pretty much because there were issues about a couple of books of the NT until into the early Middle Ages in the East) by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.

Now:

"I have no idea how much the Fathers of that time understood, or didn't. I can't name a post, but I thought you had agreed earlier that in the first days the structure of the early Christian churches and the worship that was actually practiced was not at all under an "iron fist", as some would refer to it today. (Of course, this is much more so in Catholicism.) That would seem to leave open a lot of questions as to just how many actual Christians practiced the things you listed above."

But indeed you do have an idea of how The Church was working in the 4th century! You read +Athanasius on the Incarnation thoroughly. He was the Patriarch of Alexandria. You have read the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and +Clement of Rome. I wouldn't be surprised if you had read the Divine Liturgies of +James and +John Chrysostomos; we've posted many "snips" from them and links to them over the past couple of years. You recite The Creed. By the time of the late 4th century councils on the canon, the structure of The Church as you see it in the East today was already established. The liturgies were already being said in the same fashion and in virtually the same words they are to this very day. So here's the kicker, FK. The hierarchs, clergy and laity who determined (absent Luther's meddling) the canon you read today, believed the exact same things and expressed them in the exact same way that I do as an Orthodox Christian. That's just a fact, FK.

My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I don't think that touches the idea that God DID, in fact, lay down one complete and perfect scripture."

If you believe that is what we have, then you hold a belief in common with the Mohammedans, FK. The reason what you have opined is off the mark is because men wrote those scriptures, they were not dictated to them by the HS or an angel and the "pretty much" final form of the canon was likewise established by men to accomplish a specific purpose of The Church.

Well, if you believe that is what we have, then it seems one of two things must be true. Either all of the writers of the Bible were independently capable of writing on the same level as God, OR, the original finished copies of all the books of the Bible were all subject to error. I do not think either of these is palatable, so I think that the inspiration under which the books were written was complete to the point of perfection. Every writer was a sinner, so anything short of this would leave the scriptures wide open to error.

Do you think men just wrote the prophesies, or were they "dictated" by God? BTW, "dictated" is not a word that I have used for this. I don't really think inspiration works like that. We see elements of personality in the writings. What I do believe, though, is that however it literally worked, all chance for error was eliminated.

Now I think all true Christians can agree that the writings were inspired by the HS and inspired in a way that other writings of the time and since were not even if they too were inspired by the HS (which, by the way, I firmly believe in many instances).

If you say that the scriptures were inspired to a point prohibiting the possibility of error, then you are either a Mohammedan just like me, or you believe that the men were equal to God. :) ---- I've never thought of divine inspiration being on a sliding scale before, as you describe, but I suppose it's possible. We are all gifted differently, and certainly some writing is better than others, so I can go with you on this.

Similarly, I think all true Christians can agree that canon "pretty much" was established ... by 4th century councils in North Africa and Rome under the inspiration of the the HS.

I have no problem with the HS leading the men of the Church in the FORMAL assembly of the scriptures at the Councils. However, I think the HS had already been fully at work establishing the scriptures through the people at the local church level from the beginning. I see the Councils not being a group of "grand discerners" on what was correct scripture, but being closer to a rubber stamp on what the people had already accepted as scriptures. I'm not saying the Councils were useless, but just closer to the latter than the former.

My point is not that because you believe as you do about the nature of the canon scripture, ipso facto, you must be Orthodox. I am saying that your beliefs about the nature of the canon are inconsistent with your rejection of the beliefs of the men who put that canon together.

How so? I don't give any individual man (or woman) credit for being so wise and brilliant as to either write a book of the Bible or correctly include it in the Canon, on his own. The nature of the Canon was that it was divinely inspired in its main assembly, done through the early laity. The Church then formally formed it through Councils, also under the direct supervision of the HS. I consider that a completely separate topic from to what degree the early Church hierarchy taught from scriptures correctly. All men are like grass and will eventually wither and die, :

1 Peter 1:25 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever ."