God's word doesn't contain error; man's rendition and interpretation of God's word is subject ot all human errors, unless the original meaning is retained through "tradition and the epistles," as your favorite Apostle says.
God leads, and men follow—imperfectly. God obviously allowed error, just as He allowed man to fall.
No, I don't know what you are referring to. The Bible says Enoch was a prophet.
The Book of Enoch is not scripture. We are talking about quoting from a non-scriptural source in the New Testament as a prophesy. Can we also quote prophesies from the Koran then?
Kosta: What constitutes "scriptures," FK? What the Church says? What Luther says? What SBC says?
FK: The original 66 books that God led men to canonize.
Christian canon is not fixed. Different sects have different canon. Did God lead all of them to canonize different books?
Scripture is the word God wanted us to have
Us, who? Again, that word is not uniform throughout Christianity.
I believe the ones that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not
So, then, you suggest there is a source of truth other than God? I would imagine you'd recognize that all truth is from God.
Kosta: The scripture rule is very simple: if the Bible expresses what the Church believes, then it is scripture. In other words, the biblical canon are those books that reflect the faith, not the other way around
FK: That is a good summation of Apostolic thought.
Which Apostle?
The Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want.
So, you admit there are "holes" in the faith? That's progress. How do you know it's not what the HS wants rather than the "men of the Church?" What proof do you have that it is the "men of the Curch" and not the Holy Spirit who determine the faith?
Ah, as I suspected. :) Your position, then, is that we cannot have God's word from Him. The only way to God's word, for Apostolics, is to get it through the fallible men of your Church. That IS job security. :) We believe that God loved us so much that He gave us His word FROM Him. God's word filtered through a hierarchy of men over time would certainly lead to error (as we have seen), so we believe God did not take that chance.
The Book of Enoch is not scripture. We are talking about quoting from a non-scriptural source in the New Testament as a prophesy. Can we also quote prophesies from the Koran then?
If the Bible quoted a prophecy from the Koran then I would believe it because it would be God's word. But since it doesn't, I don't believe in those prophecies.
Christian canon is not fixed. Different sects have different canon. Did God lead all of them to canonize different books?
That is unknown. What we do know is that God's Church, the Church of all believers, pretty much uniformly accepts (at least) the 66 books.
FK: "Scripture is the word God wanted us to have."
Us, who? Again, that word is not uniform throughout Christianity.
"Us" refers to God's children, for whom God made the Bible. That is, all believers, which is God's Church. The Bible was created for those Jesus prayed for, as opposed to those He did not pray for.
FK: "I believe the [prophecies] that are in the Bible BECAUSE they're in the Bible. It is irrelevant if any other prophecies come true or not."
So, then, you suggest there is a source of truth other than God? I would imagine you'd recognize that all truth is from God.
I don't suggest that at all. If it's in the Bible, THEN, the source is God. I could prophesy today that the Rams will win the Super Bowl next year. If that actually happens, it does NOT mean that it came from God just because it came true. We know that it came from God if it is in the Bible.
FK: That is a good summation of Apostolic thought.
Which Apostle?
By "Apostolic thought" I just mean generally the thinking of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. (But you know that. :)
FK: "The [Apostolic] Church determines the faith, and then fills in all the holes with what the men of the Church want."
So, you admit there are "holes" in the faith? That's progress.
Because no one ever achieves divine knowledge of the scriptures, by definition then, to us there are mysteries in the Bible. One example would be the precise mechanics of eschatology. The Bible certainly discusses the issue, but it is one upon which good Christians can disagree, even those of the same faith. But eschatology is not something we NEED to know. For what we need the Bible is clear.
How do you know it's not what the HS wants rather than the "men of the Church?" What proof do you have that it is the "men of the Church" and not the Holy Spirit who determine the faith?
I know because the men of the Church contradict what the Bible says in various cases. It seems fairly implausible to me that God would create an error-filled Bible (that winds up in men's hands) for the purpose of flawed men coming in later to repair it. That act would lessen God and heighten man. I never get that message from the scriptures, that God's intention is to aggrandize men at the expense of Himself.
Further, it makes perfect sense to me that men would claim that God wanted it this way, since it DOES aggrandize men. That is human nature and I understand it. It is much more difficult for us to accept that it is actually God who is in control and steering the ship. That is what the Bible describes as the text stands. Only when the text is "repaired" by men do we see the new result that God wanted men to be in control all along.