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.
So, we have to invent one? The reason "leap of faith" philosophers were successful is because they offer exactly what the other side offers as "proof"—leap of faith! :)
With "leap of faith" anyone can start or end anywhere he pleases, and claim that he cannot be proved wrong
That is true of all religions in this world, including Christianity. Incarnation, the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ, the Bible being the Holy Book must be taken on faith. We have no way of "explaining" or "proving" such mysteries rationally unless our "faith" becomes naked rationalism.
There is no core truth as to explaining man's existence and his relationship to God
The core "truth" is the initial assumption, which is accepted on a leap of faith, as absolute truth.
If the Bible does not also contain the truth about man then how do you even know who you are?
Last time I checked, we know more about who we are through archeology and anthropology. The Bible is "silent" on all those hominoids' remains. Note: don't use the Bible for anthropological explanations... :)
What good is knowing about God if you cannot even know about yourself and where you came from?
We believe we know where we came from, FK. It's a leap of faith, even when the world tells us otherwise.
No, "inspiration" for these purposes connotes infallibility
Really? By whose definition?
Neither I, nor any of my Reformed brethren claim infallibility in our teachings
That's good! But how can you then claim that the "indwelling spirit" (implying the Holy Spirit) leads you? Why would He lead you fallibly?
The Apostles and the other Biblical writers, however, were infallible in their WRITINGS
Again, we must believe that on leap of faith and nothing more. But we also know that what we read of their writings are copies of copies of copies, and not the originals, and that the various scribes were not "inspired" in the same way (infallibly) as the Apostles, so we must presume that those copies are not exactly what was written in the originals, or else we are making another leap of faith and assuming that all the copies of the copies are absolutely infallibly copied (which we know for a fact they are not).
Besides, it isn't really that we interpret, but that interpretation is given to us
Well, then, it must be given to us in thousands of variants, given (no pun intended) how we all have somewhat individualized and often contradictory beliefs. Gravity is a given, FK, and we all understand it in the same way. No one believes that jumping off of a tall building will make you go up! :) That's what I call unity of belief!
We fallible humans apprehend that interpretation in different ways, hence differences among good Christians
Aaah, that explains it I suppose... :) Let me rephrase: we fallible humans apprehend things fallibly (imperfectly), so we all know a little bit of the truth, but not the whole truth. The devil is in relativism (ecumenism), FK. Literally.
But, we somehow infallibly "know" that the Bible is infallible because it was written by fallible men who were inspired and made infallible, but we cannot comprehend their writings infallibly, so we just worship God as we see fit, fallibly. We are all one big fallible "church." Of course, our faith in Jesus is infallible and positively true, and so is our belief in Incarnation...yet we fallibly disagree in our infallible beliefs...
[How do you know Apostles were infallible] Matt 10:18-20... for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Many a poster on these forums sad exactly the same thing. They all must think that it is not them but the Spirit speaking through them as well.
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
Then all "true" Christians will be speaking infallibly...leap of faith again. I hope you realize that. Will the "true" Christians please stand up?
You seem to say there was chaos beforehand, and I say that it was virtually settled by that time
The canon was pretty much agreed upon by the latter half of the 4th century. In fact, it was the canon proposed by St. Athanasius that everyone agreed upon at the Council of Carthage some 30 years later. But it was "chaos" pretty much between the end of the first century and the middle of the fourth century, with a flood of Gnostic "gospels" and other heretical writings.
Revelation was the toughest book for the Church to accept. It was actually accepted in the East first, then rejected. Most deuterocanonicals (2, 3 John, 1 Peter) were rejected at first. Others (Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, and many others) were at first accepted, then gradually dropped from being read at divine liturgies. The "canons" varied from church to church.
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
Would the Holy Spirit, the Lord, lead people into disagreements? Would He deceive them? If you go by the OT, God does deceive some people but the New Testament calls Him the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter. I would say that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches would say that God doe snot deceive. The devil does. He is the crafty one and a master of deceiver, and father of all lies, not (our Christian) God. That is the Christian understanding, fallible in your eyes as it may be.
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
Superiority is not an issue here. God appointed some to be apostles, others teachers, etc. He appointed women to have children. There is nothing unfair or fair about it; there is nothing superior or inferior about it, as man needs a woman and woman a man to have children. From the beginning the churches had bishops and deacons and laity. Without the bishops there is no church; without the laity there is no church. The clergy lead the congregation in prayer. The are sinners like we are. A bus driver is no better than the people he is driving. There is nothing to recognize or not recognize. It's biblically established that some will be apostles, others teachers...interpreters, etc.
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
The Orthodox laity is expected to know what the Church teaches. If a priest of a bishop begin to deviate from the teaching that had remained unchanged for centuries, the clergy have not only the right but an obligation to confront the clergy, and to even demand their replacement. Thus, for instance, when the Ecumenical Patriarch nominated an archbishop for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, the people disapproved of this individual and the EP withdrew his nomination.
The Church does not exist without teachers and without the congregation, just as a woman by herself cannot have a child, but must receive from a man the other half of our chromosomal material, the Church needs two (clergy and laity) to be one viable organism.