I suppose this is why we differ so much on this. I do not think that the NT was written "independently" because God knew what concepts He wanted covered, and He knew how He wanted all of the books to work together. So it happened, I do not think it was luck. Therefore, when one book talks about all scripture, it makes perfect sense to me that it applies to other books that haven't even been written yet. God knew what would wind up as scripture because He caused the compilation, not men.
How do you know when the Spirit is leading you or you are leading yourself? When two Protestants disagree, which one is the Spirit leading, if either? This is akin to the Mormon saying that he recognizes the "Spirit" and his writings by the "burning in the bosom". What a bunch of hog-wash.
I don't know anything about burning bosoms :), but I know that the Spirit is leading me when I think or do something that matches what the scripture teaches. I do consider what others have said on a particular interpretation, but those opinions must be backed with other scripture. On occasion, I also find it helpful to consider common practices of the time.
God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.
But I thought that at least one Pope was declared a heretic, presumably for teaching falsely.
Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say.
The Bible can. Adam sinned sometime in the first 130 years of his life. :
Gen. 5:3-5 : 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
Seth had to come after the fall because only two were booted from the Garden. In addition, if you throw out these numbers, then how do you know which other numbers should be thrown out? That seems like a pretty large slippery slope. Of course, some numbers are meant to be taken as allegory, such as how many times to forgive someone. But I don't think there are many examples of this, and they seem fairly easy to spot.
Is this [my young earth view] from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other -
I suppose both. Much of what is considered good science at the time has gone on to be proven wrong. But I think that "old earthers" have some legitimate outs. In Gen. 2, it appears to be wide open how much time elapsed between the formation of the earth and the appearance of man. In Gen. 1, it is framed as in a matter of days. But since the counting of days started before men, there is a case that they could be "God-days". Such are referenced elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. But even those do not support an old earth, unless "a thousand" is meant as a an allegory, which could be. Overall, though, I think both sides have fair arguments.
He was declared a heretic because he allegedly embraced monothelism. Dissenting views argue that his error was that he didn't stop the heresy of Sergius, the Bishop of Constantinople, a monothelist, but gave in to Sergius' pleas to be silent on this issue.
The surviving copies of the letters (if they are true copies!) written by Pope Honorius I to Patriarch Sergius suggest Honorius I did not subscribe to monothelism, nor did he ever teach it "ex cathedra," officially.
Either way, Honorius I did not at any point during his papacy try to institute monothelism, even if he possibly did believe it. Thus, while he may have been a heretic, as Pope Alexander VI was definitely a fornicator, neither lead the Church astray.
Nonetheless the Ecumenical Council of Trullo (680 AD), which condemned him, 40 years post-mortem, called him a heretic, because of evidence available to the bishops. Unfortunately, the Council decided to destroy that evidence after the condemnation, thus leaving us only with the decision, to quote:
The two letters for which he was condemned were ordered burned after the Council. Pope Leo II confirmed the proclamations of the Council, following the Emperor's approval.
The issue which has not been resolved (yet) is (1) whether Honorus' letters constituted agreement with the monothelite heresy and (2) whether they were dogmatic (i.e. ex cathedra) or merely his religious opinions.
The copies or purported copies of his letter show that he did not embrace monothelism but decided to remain silent on its existence in Constantinople (whose Patriarch was also excommunicated by the same Council, along with others who embraced monothelism as a means of re-uniting monophysitism with Orthodoxy).
The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are deemed infallible, and binding, thus technically speaking you are correct, although it is not all that black-and-white, because they fail to show that he lead the Church away from Orthodox Faith.
From God's point of view, of course, there is no luck. But this is based on faith, is it not? We take the Church's word that it has presented to us God's Word. There is no scientific proof. From man's point of view, Luke did not get together with Matthew so that they could get the red letters right on Jesus' words.
I don't know anything about burning bosoms :), but I know that the Spirit is leading me when I think or do something that matches what the scripture teaches.
Do you realize you can be arguing in a circle? The Bible can "teach" a lot of things, according to heretics....
On occasion, I also find it helpful to consider common practices of the time.
Well, that makes more sense than relying on yourself.
But I thought that at least one Pope was declared a heretic, presumably for teaching falsely.
No Pope taught falsely. A Pope that does not firmly declare heresy when he sees it is not the same as one who teaches it actively.
The Bible can. Adam sinned sometime in the first 130 years of his life. :
Then I stand corrected - presuming that the Bible is talking about his entire life and not counting the years after the fall alone.
Much of what is considered good science at the time has gone on to be proven wrong.
I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be reconciled by a strictly scientific, historical point of view. They clearly contradict. That is a big reason why I consider the first three chapters as allegorical or spiritual.
Regards