Then for you the term "God's Holy word" is really a misnomer because the Bible is neither Holy (because it contains much human error) nor is it God's word (it's the unreliable word of the authors).
I didn't make the claim; you did. I say that all "holy books" lack objective proof and must be accepted on blind faith.
I suppose that your faith in the truth of the Fathers' writings is also blind?
The historical fact is that it was precisely the Church hierarchy that approved and canonized the NT in a special Council in Carthage (end of 4th century). But we wouldn't want historical facts to get in the way of Reformed innovations...would we? :)
So, the Bible is unreliable as historical fact, but the word of the Fathers IS absolutely historical fact? This again puts the hierarchy ahead of the Apostles since you only believe the hierarchy is reliable.
The "whole" Church could not read and write, FK. Very few people had the skills to do this...sola scriptura was no invented yet. Historically and factually: the Council of Carthage canonized the NT; the hierarchy of the whole Church, that is.
The people didn't need to know how to read or write to know whether or not the Gospels they heard were true. The Holy Spirit led them to the truth. The hierarchy did a fine thing by putting a rubber stamp on the earlier work of Holy Spirit, but it wasn't their original work.
If one believes A, and he believes B=A "just because," then he must believe B just the same. The "leap" of faith is to believe A first. The rest follows "naturally." But, if A is an assumption and not a "fact," then B and all subsequent letters are assumptions of the assumption.
So, the trick is to be able to reasonably accept "A" as a fact, and not an assumption. Then a total leap of faith is never necessary, and there CAN be real answers to all the big questions concerning man and God.
If you accept the Christian canon (NT) then you accept that it was proclaimed, by inspiration, infallibly by fallible men in an infallible Church. Only an inspired body can recognize infallibly what is inspired.
There is no basis for this claim. Why MUST the Holy Spirit ONLY lead a small body of men instead of leading His whole Church?
At which point did the Church become "fallible," fallible individuals in it notwithstanding?
The hierarchy of the Church has been fallible since the Apostles, since only the Apostles (and other Biblical authors) were inspired. Being fallible doesn't automatically mean being wrong about everything, though.
2 Timothy simply speaks of all scriptures (at that time that was only the uncanonzied OT), and since the OT canon was not finalized (yet), 2 Tim really does not provide us with any knowledge what constitutes scripture and how do we really "know" it is scripture.
I'm glad Jesus didn't have the extra-Biblical belief that something written had to be Canonized by uninspired men to be true and His real teaching. I guess since nothing was Canonized when Jesus spoke about scriptures, He was really talking about nothing?
We believe the Bible is true "just because." The Muslims believe the Koran is "true" also "just because," just as the Hindus believe panishiads are "true" (actually a lot closer to Christianity than Islam!) "just because."
Then why are you a Christian as opposed to one of those other faiths, or of any faith at all? Just because?
And who has the qualifications and monopoly on "truth?" The reader?
No, Holy Spirit does.
I simply stated that there is no way to objectively authenticate any of these truisms (and that applies to all so-called "holy books"). Ultimately, it comes to what we are personally willing to accept (subjectively) as "holy" and "true."
The Muslims will tell you that the Koran is both "holy" and "inerrant" because it is the word of "God." To them it is, because they are willing to accept it as such. It's personal preference of men; not absolute truth.
I suppose that your faith in the truth of the Fathers' writings is also blind?
I accept Incarnation, Resurrection, and Christianity on blind faith and believe that the Church contains the fullness of God's revelation compared to all other faiths, including the Reformed.
The alternative to blind faith is to follow the example of Pascal's wager that it is simply "safer" to believe than not to believe. What to believe, nevertheless, is still our choice in either case.
So, the Bible is unreliable as historical fact, but the word of the Fathers IS absolutely historical fact?
The Bible is not a historically reliable source. It's importance and authority concern the truth about God, not the world, and it is accepted on blind faith. . The Fathers commented on what we believe are the truths about God. Their value in the Church is in that regard, not history.
The people didn't need to know how to read or write to know whether or not the Gospels they heard were true
Really? They could tell a Gnostic "gospel" from a real one? They didn't have a problem with the Epistle of Barnabas for about three centuries. Then all of a sudden it was no longer inspired to their ears! LOL!
The Holy Spirit led them to the truth. The hierarchy did a fine thing by putting a rubber stamp on the earlier work of Holy Spirit, but it wasn't their original work
LOL! You are making me laugh FK. Do you realize you are making things up as you go along? If the Holy Spirit leads everyone than everyone with the "indwelling spirit" is "inspired." God did not appoint everyone who believes to interpret, or to be an apostle, or a teacher...
So, the trick is to be able to reasonably accept "A" as a fact, and not an assumption. Then a total leap of faith is never necessary, and there CAN be real answers to all the big questions concerning man and God
Absolutely. Once we agree that there are unicorns on Jupiter, we can talk about them as "real." It doesn't necessarily make them real in the strictest sense, so any subsequent "facts" stated about those unicorns are assumptions, just as the "fact" that there are unicorns on Jupiter is. The first assumption becomes the absolute "proof" of the "veracity" of our belief.
There is no basis for this claim. Why MUST the Holy Spirit ONLY lead a small body of men instead of leading His whole Church?
The Holy Spirit leads whomever He chooses, but we know that God appointed apostles and teachers and interpreters...because it's in the Bible. The hierarchy knows more about the faith than an average Joe/Jane. That was especially true in the 4th century AD.
The hierarchy of the Church has been fallible since the Apostles, since only the Apostles (and other Biblical authors) were inspired. Being fallible doesn't automatically mean being wrong about everything, though
And how do you know the Apostles were inspired? Is it not because they are the ones who wrote the New Testament? And who said the New Testament is true? Was it not the Church that canonized it as scripture? So, you accept, hands down, the Church hierarchical decision that the NT is scripture, yet you deny the Church the guidance of the HS?
I would say that anyone who is truly guided by the HS is inspired. Trouble is differentiating who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie, or just simply expressing some madness.
Retrovision is always 20/20, FK. Do you honestly believe that if some backwoods redneck started to preach and claim he is the Son of God tat people would believe him? In fact there is a whacko Protestant minister out there who compares himself with Christ...and some believe it.
I'm glad Jesus didn't have the extra-Biblical belief that something written had to be Canonized by uninspired men to be true and His real teaching. I guess since nothing was Canonized when Jesus spoke about scriptures, He was really talking about nothing?
The Gospels were not written down when Timothy was written, FK. Jewish canon existed but wasn't completed. All Jews agreed that Torah was Scripture. Knowing the history of the faith really heps put all this into a proper perspective, FK.
Then why are you a Christian as opposed to one of those other faiths, or of any faith at all? Just because?
Bottom line: yes. My preference, just as our faith is a personal preference of each and every one of us.
No, Holy Spirit does.
With all due respect, FK, I am bored with this cliché. Just because the HS does doesn't mean we do!