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!
I am in the middle of a study of the last 500 years of Christian thought, and these sentiments match exactly what I have learned of the progression from the Renaissance Christian philosopher all the way up to his progeny, the modern non-believer. That's why I am so taken aback that you, a Christian, would hold to these views. From what I have learned so far in the study, the "leap of faith" philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, et al., along with the logical postivism movement, led directly to today's secular humanism. The REASON is that in "leap of faith" philosophies there is no REASON as a basis in truth upon which to build. With "leap of faith" anyone can start or end anywhere he pleases, and claim that he cannot be proved wrong. There is no core truth as to explaining man's existence and his relationship to God.
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.
Not at all. The alternative is Reformation thinking which provided REAL answers because it recognized that perspicuous scripture intended to reveal those answers. Reformation thinking took the Bible more literally and gave man a more literal basis in truth from which to start in his quest to find his place in the universe. Less mysticism, more literal truth.
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.
Ay Caramba! :) If the Bible does not also contain the truth about man then how do you even know who you are? What good is knowing about God if you cannot even know about yourself and where you came from?
If the Holy Spirit leads everyone than everyone with the "indwelling spirit" is "inspired."
No, "inspiration" for these purposes connotes infallibility. Neither I, nor any of my Reformed brethren claim infallibility in our teachings. The Apostles and the other Biblical writers, however, were infallible in their WRITINGS.
God did not appoint everyone who believes to interpret, or to be an apostle, or a teacher...
I'm not aware that interpretation is part of the Biblical list. Besides, it isn't really that we interpret, but that interpretation is given to us. We fallible humans apprehend that interpretation in different ways, hence differences among good Christians.
And how do you know the Apostles were inspired? Is it not because they are the ones who wrote the New Testament?
No, it is because of passages like this:
Matt 10:18-20 : 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Now, in my view this is also written to all Christians, but in the narrow view this shows Godly inspiration of a special type directly to the Apostles.
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?
While I would agree that Canonization was a good thing for Christianity, I still do not understand the magic behind it. You seem to say there was chaos beforehand, and I say that it was virtually settled by that time. So, we just disagree there.
I do not deny that the Holy Spirit leads the members of the Apostolic Church. Of course He does. But equally obvious is that this nevertheless results in disagreements among good Christians, even WITHIN the Apostolic Church. Since I do not recognize the authority of your hierarchy, and since the Apostolic hierarchy is not even in communion with itself, I see no superiority in it to the Spirit's leading of the individual Christian.
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 that people would believe him?
There might be some, but the Holy Spirit also gives discernment corporately. In Orthodoxy, I think I remember that if a Bishop or council made a ruling it would be nullified if the laity refused to follow it. This idea sounds reasonable to me, and the same thing would apply in the case of some crazy preacher in a Bible-believing CHURCH.