(Naturally, I think that God handled the content of the Bible.) Now, on the one hand we have the perfectly good idea that men, or even bodies of men, will and do grow in faith. They are sanctified. On the other hand, we have "always and everywhere believed". How do you reconcile these?
We have only one incident of Jesus actually writing anything mentioned in the Bible, and He wrote in the dust. Is that not of significance? The Bible does not have anyone writing anything that came to be in it during the life of Jesus. Is that not of significance?
That depends on whether we say the Bible is a work of men, or a work of God through men. If we say the latter, then all of your above, ......... well .......... goes away. :)
The Apostolic view is that Scripture contains all the truths that God wanted us to know through the Bible. Scriptures do not contradict the Church of Jesus, since the Church of Jesus decided on the content of the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
OOOPS! Good start, bad finish. :) Yes or no, does man determine what God's revelation to man is?
Jesus left us His Church, commissioned at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. No words, no parchments, no books.
I don't understand. The written word should not threaten you. I think much of your (collective) faith is based on the written words of the Fathers. Those words appear to be OK with you, but you appear to have a problem with the authority of the words that God actually authenticated.
But the reason I'm jumping in is that I would not put the canonization of Scripture precisely as MarkBsnr puts it.
And I'm sure you can see why I wouldn't answer this question:
Yes or no, does man determine what God's revelation to man is?
And would take exception if I were forced to answer it as a n'ostile witness. (Mother was English; lots of Cockney jokes in my house.)
Instead of explaining my objection negatively I'd say in positive terms that the Holy Spirit operating through the decision making organ(s) of the Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture (as said earlier, as handed down, edited, blah blah).
The problem, from my POV is that the Protestant weltanschaaung has what feel like too extreme, even artificially extreme dichotomies - Tradition v. Scripture, Faith v. Works, Merit v. Grace, God v. "institutions of men". it's not simply for cuteness that I say: Scripture IS a tradition, the queen of traditions; Faith IS a Work - enabled and directed by God; Merit is only possible if it is graciously given by God -- it's a kind of grace, essentially.
So the answer I'd like to give is clearly God determines what revelation is. And he not only determines it (since it is HIS act of self-disclosure) but he sends the Spirit to men so that they can see what the Spirit is doing elsewhere.
And to back up the final two clauses I do the riff on promises to the Church and apostles and all.
***Now, on the one hand we have the perfectly good idea that men, or even bodies of men, will and do grow in faith. They are sanctified. On the other hand, we have “always and everywhere believed”. How do you reconcile these?***
Well, look at the theology of the Trinity. It was not rigidly defined for centuries until it was required in response to growing heresies. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals (or indeed the entire content of the OT) was not required until the heresy of the Reformation.
The growing of the faith was simply that - a growing. Not the innovations of the last five hundred years.
***Yes or no, does man determine what God’s revelation to man is?***
Of course not. God’s revelation is His and not man’s.
On the other hand, fallible men can fall short of understanding that revelation.
***That depends on whether we say the Bible is a work of men, or a work of God through men. If we say the latter, then all of your above, ......... well .......... goes away. :)***
God is perfect; men are not. Example: Beethoven created some of the most perfect music that has ever been created. If a pianist cannot play it well, is that Beethoven’s fault?